This is the mail archive of the 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: [patch] for PR 19333

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> Neil Booth wrote:
> > IMO it should never get further than that.
> 100% agreed.  This is just a front-end bug.

Originally the (undocumented) extension was unconditional, with #if 0 code 
to generate a warning under certain conditions.  I then made it a 
pedwarn-if-pedantic in 
<> to implement the 
requirement in C99 for this to be diagnosed (as in C90 the requirement for 
arrays to be of object types wasn't in the Constraints, so undefined in 
C90 with no diagnostic required).  I see no reason not to change this to 
an unconditional error (with of course a testcase that it now is such an 
error, e.g. the testcase from the PR in question), also making the type 
error_mark_node if necessary; even in the case where array-to-pointer 
conversion of parameters is applied so the converted parameter declaration 
could have been written as valid C, the declaration involving an array of 
incomplete type has never been valid C.  The fact that the compiler 
crashes for this invalid code makes a case for not using a deprecation 
period for this extension but just removing it.

In general I think every test of "pedantic" (in any front end) should 
correspond to documentation of some extension, or be removed to make the 
conditioned code unconditional, and every use of pedwarn should be 
documented as an extension (that it isn't unconditionally an error) or 
replaced by a hard error.

Joseph S. Myers      (personal mail) (CodeSourcery mail) (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)

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