From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23267 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2001 08:16:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23174 invoked by uid 71); 20 Nov 2001 08:16:04 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20011120081602.23169.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Zack Weinberg Subject: Re: preprocessor/4902: no macro redef warnings Reply-To: Zack Weinberg X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00334.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/4902; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Zack Weinberg To: Neil Booth Cc: "Golubev I. N." , gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: preprocessor/4902: no macro redef warnings Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:08:53 -0800 On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 07:51:43AM +0000, Neil Booth wrote: > > Neil wrote in : > > > > > you get a warning iff -pedantic > > > > `(cpp)Undefining and Redefining Macros' does not say so. Neither does > > it explain (or refer to explanation) why that change of requiring > > `-pedantic' was made (making `gcc' different from many other compilers > > which warn by default). > > > > Perhaps some people think that redefn warnings `trigger frequently on > > harmless code' (as `-pedantic' description in `(cpp)Invocation' says), > > but I disagree. My experience shows that more often than not they > > detect real bugs. > > What do you think, Zack? This warning was on by default in 2.95, and I agree with the reporter that non-trivial redefinitions do tend to represent bugs. warn_of_redefinition is your code, so I must presume you meant to change it - why? zw