From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24593 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2002 20:26:01 -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 24577 invoked by uid 71); 20 Dec 2002 20:26:01 -0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021220202601.24576.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: c/9025: GNU C compiler does not honour 'const' type qualifier Reply-To: "Joseph S. Myers" X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01121.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/9025; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: , , , Cc: Subject: Re: c/9025: GNU C compiler does not honour 'const' type qualifier Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:20:23 +0000 (GMT) On 20 Dec 2002 ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de wrote: > Confirmed. All versions that I checked issue a warning for the assignment > to a const value but this should be an error at least with std=c99 because No, it should be (and is) an error at least with -pedantic-errors, which is what you need to get an error for everything the standard requires a diagnostic for. However, I don't see any point in this not being a hard error unconditionally and it's one case that is frequently requested to be such. -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk