From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-167631-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23391 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2011 14:59:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 23383 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Mar 2011 14:59:48 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TW_LN
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-ww0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:59:42 +0000
Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so5661609wwj.8        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.179.140 with SMTP id bq12mr3204249wbb.152.1300633179927; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.129.76 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimdwgq5BoAcByRUJ3n1quMHVG+g+s1ukSEe3PFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimdwgq5BoAcByRUJ3n1quMHVG+g+s1ukSEe3PFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:59:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Fk-UHfmPp=kSoUCbK=Nq8tu==MN-ONBiefXS_@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: g++ 4.6 and suggested flags
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
To: denis campredon <denis.campredon@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00289.txt.bz2

On 20 March 2011 13:41, denis campredon wrote:
> downloaded gcc 4.6, and tried it.
>
> And I found something a little strange when I compile a file :
>
> g++ displayboard.cpp -lncurses -c
> displayboard.cpp: In constructor =91DisplayBoard::DisplayBoard(int, int)=
=92:
> displayboard.cpp:47:22: error: invalid conversion from =91void (*
> (*)())(int)=92 to =91sighandler_t=92 [-fpermissive]
> displayboard.cpp:41:16: error: =A0 initializing argument 2 of =91void (*
> signal(int, sighandler_t))(int)=92 [-fpermissive]
>
>
> So, I tried to compile with the flag suggested
>
>
> g++ displayboard.cpp -lncurses -c -fpermissive
> displayboard.cpp: In constructor =91DisplayBoard::DisplayBoard(int, int)=
=92:
> displayboard.cpp:47:22: warning: invalid conversion from =91void (*
> (*)())(int)=92 to =91sighandler_t=92 [-fpermissive]
> displayboard.cpp:41:16: warning: =A0 initializing argument 2 of =91void (*
> signal(int, sighandler_t))(int)=92 [-fpermissive]
>
>
>
> So I was wondering if it was normal to gcc to suggest the same flag,
> who can't change the output for the second case.

This mailing list is for discussing development of gcc, not help using
gcc. Please take any further questions to the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list, thanks.

Yes, it's normal.  The [-fpermissive] annotation on the warning tells
you which flag controls the warning, it isn't telling you that using
the flag will make the warning go away.  Using the flag downgraded the
diagnostic from an error to a warning.

Compare it with other diagnostic output e.g.

warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions
[-Wsign-compare]

This tells you the diagnostic is controlled by the -Wsign-compare
option, not that adding -Wsign-compare will make the warning go away.