From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Gerwinski <peter@agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Huh?
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 19:23:12 -0000
Message-id: <199708221723.TAA15454@agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de>
In-reply-to: Huh?
X-SW-Source: 1997-08/0314.html

According to Peter Seebach:
> 
> I submitted some patches, some time ago, to add warnings for non-int-main.
> 
> They have all been changed to "pedwarn".
> 
> All of my belief that "-pedantic" should be the default aside, this is
> Just Plain Wrong.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because, it is a flat out *bug* that
> 	gcc -Wmain
> will not warn for suspicious declarations of main.
> 
> These are *NOT* pedantic warnings, they are plain old warnings, which are
> desirable if warn_main has been set.  My default behavior was to set -Wmain
> if -Wall is set, unless one has selected a freestanding environment; this
> may or may not be correct, but as long as there is a warn_main, it is a
> bug for the warnings to be under pedwarn.

Without knowing the details of these changes:  `pedwarn()' is something
*stronger* than just `warning()'.  It does warn *without* `-pedantic',
but in contrast to just `warning()' it converts to an error message if
somebody specifies `-pedantic-errors'.

> If anyone knows when or why this was changed, I'd like to know, because I
> am vaguely miffed that some code I put some real effort into (mostly
> because I'd never even looked at gcc internals before :) ) has been,
> AFAIK, gratuitously broken.

I only can guess, but I suspect that the person who changed this thought
that your warnings are more important than you thought.

> N.B.:  If reverting pedwarn to warn, *DO NOT* do this to the warning for the
> 3rd argument if it is (char **), this is intentionally only a pedwarn, because
> envp used to be The Right Thing, and is specifically documented as a common
> extension in C89.

Then do something like

    if (pedantic)
      pedwarn ("whatever");

because without the `if' you will always get that warning - with or
without `-pedantic'.

Greetings,

    Peter

 Dipl.-Phys. Peter Gerwinski, Essen, Germany, free physicist and programmer
peter.gerwinski@uni-essen.de - http://home.pages.de/~peter.gerwinski/ [970201]
 maintainer GNU Pascal [970714] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: egcs-ss-970821 is available
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 19:23:12 -0000
Message-ID: <199708221723.TAA15454@agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de>
In-reply-to: egcs-ss-970821 is available
X-SW-Source: 1997-08/0315.html
Message-ID: <19970822192312.zaSGSSzqjZIk-P-MM3jgqCSJy6E1jI8GSRC6t9KCOH4@z>

  In message <m0x1y5t-0004ecC@ocean.lucon.org>you write:
  > > We're still making changes to the egcs tree layout and snapshot packaging
  > ,
  > > so expect things to change in the next snapshot (hopefully by 8/24).  The
  > > next snapshot will include an integrated libstdc++ distribution, texinfo
  > > and maybe other stuff.
  > > 
  > 
  > Could someone please get my libg++ patch at
  > 
  > ftp://ftp.yggdrasil.com/private/hjl/libg++-2.8.0b6-glibc.6.diff.gz
The libgstdc++ distribution will _not_ be libg++-2.8.0b6 based,
so you patch is not appropriate.

jeff