This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why does -pedantic make long long an error in C++?
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy at debian dot org>, John David Anglin <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:19:54 -0700
- Subject: Re: Why does -pedantic make long long an error in C++?
- References: <20030813144343.A3915@synopsys.com> <DB49655C-CDDA-11D7-AEF7-000393A6D2F2@physics.uc.edu>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 06:09:49PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 17:43 US/Eastern, Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > There's no argument on this issue: -pedantic is supposed to issue only
> > warnings. It's a bug.
>
> What are taking about, gcc used to error out with -pedantic when
> typename was missing.
> In fact there was a bug about that and was closed as invalid (a long
> time ago).
What I'm saying is that if there is any case where -pedantic detects
a condition and causes an error, it is a gcc bug. However, if the
compiler also has an error without -pedantic, it's not a bug. If
someone did as you say (claimed it was not a bug that -pedantic caused
an additional error), they did wrong.