Re: C++ warnings vs. errors

["Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>]

2008/6/11 Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>:
> Volker Reichelt <v.reichelt@netcologne.de> writes:
>
>> since Manuel's patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00962.html
>> a lot of C++ code is now accepted on mainline (when compiling without
>> special flags like -fpermissive and -pedantic), that used to be rejected.
>> Instead of getting closer to the standard we get away from it, which is a
>> bad idea IMHO - especially since the standard should be widely adopted by
>> now, given that it's about 10 years old. So here's a collection of some
>> warnings that I'd rather see as errors:
>
> It sounds like you want to change some pedwarns to permerrors.  Go for
> it.

Absolutely. Thanks to Jonathan Wakely, we did change quite a few.
However, right now, I don't have neither the free time nor the
knowledge of the ISO C++ standard to go through all of them and
evaluate whether they should be pedwarns or permerrors.

So, just grep pedwarn gcc/cp/*.c and s/pedwarn/permerror/ as you see fit.

A tip: if it is guarded by "if (pedantic)" it should probably stay as
pedwarn. It doesn't make sense for a permerror to be guarded by the
"pedantic" flag.

Moreover, you will probably find things that we don't handle well when
using fpermissive, so they should be just errors.

Thanks,

Manuel.