From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16831 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2008 15:33:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 16823 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2008 15:33:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ns2.uludag.org.tr (HELO uludag.org.tr) (193.140.100.220) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:33:17 +0000 Received: from ninjamobile.local (unknown [85.97.18.122]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uludag.org.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC69D61F4C47; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:33:08 +0200 (EET) From: Ismail =?iso-8859-9?q?D=F6nmez?= To: Gabriel Dos Reis Subject: Re: Changes in C++ FE regarding pedwarns to be errors are harmful Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:36:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20071204.744707) Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Manuel =?iso-8859-9?q?L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez?= References: <200801082328.22849.ismail@pardus.org.tr> <200801090324.03828.ismail@pardus.org.tr> <87tzlh3f8w.fsf@soliton.cs.tamu.edu> In-Reply-To: <87tzlh3f8w.fsf@soliton.cs.tamu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-9" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801131734.42932.ismail@pardus.org.tr> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00179.txt.bz2 Sunday 13 January 2008 17:41:03 tarihinde Gabriel Dos Reis =FEunlar=FD yazm= =FD=FEt=FD: > Ismail D=F6nmez writes: > | Hi again, > | > | Wednesday 09 January 2008 00:28:54 tarihinde Manuel L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez = =FEunlar=FD > | > | yazm=FD=FEt=FD: > | > For your particular example, you could open a regression bug against > | > 4.3 that says: > | > * '"foo' redefined" is not mandated by the standard or it is not > | > serious enough, so it should not be a pedwarn just a normal warning; > | > or > | > | Looks like this is actually mandated by standard :-( , thats what I am > | told on #gcc anyway :) > > #define foo bar > #define foo baz > > is asking for trouble -- one should look for fixing the source of that > inconsistency. That was just an example, real life testcase shows that problem stems from= =20 autoconf and its config.h. Projects end up defining things like HAVE_STDLIB= _H=20 twice which is not harmful at all but now causes an error if g++ is used. Regards, ismail --=20 Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again.