From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16905 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2008 18:11:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 16895 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jan 2008 18:11:02 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:10:38 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m09IAaKC015750 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:10:36 -0500 Received: from porkchop.devel.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [10.10.36.73]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m09IAZx6011817 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:10:35 -0500 Received: from porkchop.devel.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by porkchop.devel.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m09IAZk0027893 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:10:35 -0500 Received: (from bkoz@localhost) by porkchop.devel.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id m09IAZFf027889; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:10:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:11:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200801091810.m09IAZFf027889@porkchop.devel.redhat.com> From: Benjamin Kosnik To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Changes in C++ FE regarding pedwarns to be errors are harmful In-Reply-To: References: <200801082328.22849.ismail@pardus.org.tr> <200801082345.30788.ismail@pardus.org.tr> <6c33472e0801081428l33bfb4a9vf87e51d8b6b7eaf8@mail.gmail.com> <200801090324.03828.ismail@pardus.org.tr> <6c33472e0801081825i648f0f58x38fb46a57c4e716a@mail.gmail.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 >> Of course there is a third option: >> * Make pedwarns warnings by default unless -Werror or >> --pedantic-errors are given (just like the C front-end). >This makes sense to me. I have never understood why it is a good idea >for the C++ and C frontends to differ in this way. Me too. The current error behavior just seems gratuitous. What was the rationale for this change to error instead of warn? I am having problems locating this discussion on gcc-patches. -benjamin