Re: Changes in C++ FE regarding pedwarns to be errors are harmful

["Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez@gmail.com>]

On 12/01/2008, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/01/2008, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here is an initial patch implementing some of your proposals. I used
> > pederror as the name of the function. That is, it is an error unless
> > fpermissive is given.
>
> These errors should be independent of -pedantic* unless the if
> (pedantic) check is also present in the code, but that's a special
> case.  Have I understood the intention correctly?

Actually, I didn't understand that we wanted to separate fpermissive
and pedantic-errors completely. (Notice that the internal
declaration/definition of fpermissive actually mentions pedantic.) But
I agree with you: they should be unrelated.

> I don't really like the name permerror either though, relaxable_error
> is accurate but not great either.

I actually like permerror better than the alternative
permissive_error. I think those two are the only ones that make sense.

> Thanks for doing this - I agree with your other decisions about what
> should be a pedward or a pederror/whatever in e.g. lex.c and parser.c

Your information above was very helpful. But I am still not sure about
the rest of pedwarns.

Cheers,

Manuel.