This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Why does -pedantic make long long an error in C++?

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com, Matthew Wilcox <willy at debian dot org>, John David Anglin <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:29:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Why does -pedantic make long long an error in C++?

I found an email from you that says the opposite (back in 1993 when 2.95 was not even being thought of): <http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/364/1993/4/0/2055267/>

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 18:26 US/Eastern, Joe Buck wrote:

On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 06:20:03PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:

In fact the C++ front-end is different from the C front end in respect
to -pedantic.
Here is the patch which changed the "long long" -pedantic into errors:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-07/msg01060.html>
Looks like the warning about "long long" with -pedantic was always
indented to be an error not a warning.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

Adding Mark to CC since it was his patch which caused this, maybe he
has something to say.


I think that this was a mistake; it violates the longstanding spec
about the meaning of -pedantic.  Certainly I don't see a reason for the
C and C++ front ends to differ on the meaning of the same switch, or
to differ on the meaning for distinct errors.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why does -pedantic make long long an error in C++?
  - From: Joe Buck

References:
- Re: Why does -pedantic make long long an error in C++?
  - From: Joe Buck

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