From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27622 invoked by alias); 19 May 2003 12:26:01 -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 27592 invoked by uid 71); 19 May 2003 12:26:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030519122601.27590.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Baldwin, Arthur W" Subject: RE: c++/10065: -pedantic has strange side effects; what is accept ed in -std=c++98 Reply-To: "Baldwin, Arthur W" X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02071.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/10065; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Baldwin, Arthur W" To: "'giovannibajo@libero.it'" , "Baldwin, Arthur W" , "'gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org'" , "'gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org'" , "'nobody@gcc.gnu.org'" , "'gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org'" Cc: Subject: RE: c++/10065: -pedantic has strange side effects; what is accept ed in -std=c++98 Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 08:25:26 -0400 I do not understand the resolution of this problem. The response below says in part: Variable sized array are not supposed to be disabled with -ansi or -std=c++98 because they can't possibly conflict with well-formed ISO programs. The reason I reported the issue is that I cannot compile a program with variable sized arrays with flags such as -ansi or -std=c++98. The compiler (gcc-3.2.2 on Linux) issues errors and aborts the build. With -pedantic, however, I get a warning, but the build completes. Older versions of the compiler handled the variable sized arrays without any flags. The question is: Does gcc support variable sized arrays or not, and will the compiler support the variable sized arrays into the future? We have legacy, delivered code that exploits the variable-sized array capability of an older compiler, and I have to know whether we should prepare to rewrite the code in a maintenance upgrade when we evolve to a new OS and new compiler. At the moment, the only way I could redeliver the code would be to compile with -pedantic, and then explain away the warnings. Without -pedantic, IT WON'T COMPILE. Sorry if I'm being dense about the response, but it doesn't seem to address my concern. Art Baldwin ............................................. Art Baldwin General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems 100 Plastics Avenue Pittsfield, MA 01201 arthur.baldwin@gd-ais.com 413.494.2583 > -----Original Message----- > From: giovannibajo@libero.it [mailto:giovannibajo@libero.it] > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 10:00 PM > To: arthur.baldwin@gd-ais.com; gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org; > gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org; nobody@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: c++/10065: -pedantic has strange side effects; what is > accepted in -std=c++98 > > > Synopsis: -pedantic has strange side effects; what is > accepted in -std=c++98 > > State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed > State-Changed-By: bajo > State-Changed-When: Fri May 16 01:59:54 2003 > State-Changed-Why: > Can't see a reason to keep this open. The problem with > -pedantic converting errors to warning is already handled > in c++/10032. > Variable sized array are not supposed to be disabled with > -ansi or -std=c++98 because they can't possibly conflict > with well-formed ISO programs. The official way to disable > extension is to use -pedantic, and -pedantic correctly > reports a warning about it. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail& database=gcc&pr=10065