This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++/890
- To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: c++/890
- From: Travis Moulton <Travis dot Moulton at motorola dot com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:25:45 GMT
- CC: djm at cs dot mu dot oz dot au, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20001127093110.16477.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com> <200011280405.eAS45JP01605@bright.bright.com.au> <3A238C48.7D184B6F@codesourcery.com>
> Should this error be downgraded to a warning in the presence of
> -fpermissive?
Thoughts from the field (which I am out standing in ;-): I would like
to see -fpermissive mean, "if it doesn't effect the output code, it's
not an error." Any user who turns on the -fpermissive flag knows that
they are doing something wacky. They don't need the compiler beating
them over the head with that fact (but the compiler should scream and
holler).
> On a language level it does seem strange that one can declare
> struct X;
> void foo (X);
> provided X is complete at the definition and call sites, but not do
> the same for exception specifications. There don't appear to be any
> defect reports about this. Opinions?
I think this is strange and I would write the code differently, but
gcc shouldn't be limited to non-strange code, that's written the way I
would write it.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Travis Moulton
Software Engineer Phone: (781)852-2753
WaveMark Technologies Fax: (781)270-0193
A Division of Motorola
70 Blanchard Road E-mail: Travis.Moulton@motorola.com
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 URL: http://mot-sps.com/adc/wavemark
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~