This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: diagnostic.c reorganization


On Sun, 11 May 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> | +/* A "pedantic" warning.  Use this for code which triggers a
> | +   diagnostic which is required by the relevant language
> | +   specification, but which is considered unhelpful (i.e. there isn't
> | +   anything *really* wrong with the construct in the language as she
> | +   is spoke).
> 
> This comment is unhelpful and inaccurate.  Please remove the part
> 
>    (i.e. there isn't anything *really* wrong with the construct in the
>    language as she is spoke).
> 
> and change "is considered unhelpful" to "GCC consideres too restrictive".

But "considers too restrictive" is still inaccurate - it describes only 
if (pedantic) pedwarn (...).  The characterisation of pedwarns is simply 
that the standard requires the diagnostic and that GCC considers that an 
_error_ by default would be too restrictive (except in C++, where pedwarns 
are errors by default).  Mandatory pedwarns are for code that is clearly 
wrong but for which there is a clear interpretation that GCC uses to 
compile the code anyway.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]