From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31573 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2008 17:06:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 31558 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2008 17:06:05 -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; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:05:47 +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 m0BH1hkX007913; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:01:43 -0500 Received: from lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (lacrosse.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.154]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0BH1gYU015474; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:01:43 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.6) with ESMTP id m0BH1fXg032128; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:01:41 -0500 Message-ID: <4787A0F5.9050904@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:06:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Mitchell CC: Ian Lance Taylor , =?UTF-8?B?TWFudWVsIEzDs3Blei1JYsOh?= =?UTF-8?B?w7Fleg==?= , =?UTF-8?B?SXNtYWlsIETDtm5t?= =?UTF-8?B?ZXo=?= , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Changes in C++ FE regarding pedwarns to be errors are harmful 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> <4785238C.20302@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4785238C.20302@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00143.txt.bz2 Mark Mitchell wrote: > I think Jason's input would be helpful. I remember having a discussion > about this years ago (1998?), but I don't remember the complete > rationale. I think the idea was that we wanted many of these things > (ugly old ARM-era C++ things) to be errors, but didn't want to make it > impossible to compile old code. They're not "pedantic" in the sense > that you only care if you're trying extremely hard to be ISO-conformant; > they're things no sane C++ programmer would do at this point, but we > want to support for legacy C++ code. Right. -fpermissive was a kludgey way to make these things errors by default but still allow them to compile. > I don't see any a priori problem with changing to match the C front end. > We could of course change some of the pedwarns into errors if we really > think they ought to be errors. Or, some of them could be ordinary > warnings when not -pedantic, and pedwarns when -pedantic. Sounds like we want a separate category of diagnostic with the current C++ pedwarn semantics so that we can change pedwarns themselves back to a warning by default. Jason