[PING] [PATCH/C++/diagnostic] Be extra pedantic about stray semicolons

Manuel López-Ibáñez lopezibanez@gmail.com
Wed Mar 21 22:02:00 GMT 2007

On 21 Mar 2007 16:19:41 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs.tamu.edu> wrote:
> "Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez@gmail.com> writes:
> | If it is in pedantic, it is because the warning is mandated by the
> | standard, exactly what people should expect from pedantic. It is
> The standard does not mandate warning.  It mandates diagnostics.
> We (GNU C++) have chosed to classify some of them as just warning
> instead of hard errors -- also known as pedwarn.

Thanks for the clarification. I think GNU C++ has chosen to classify
them as hard errors unless you give -fpermissive, am I wrong?
Nevertheless, your wording is more correct.

> | interesting to be able to enable warnings without enabling pedantic.
> | But if you enable pedantic, I understand that you want to get the
> | warnings mandated by the standard.
> -pedantic usally means adherence to the letter of the standard.  So,
> I'm inclined NOT to introduce yet another knob for this.  People are
> routinely asking the compiler to be more compliant; it is the least to
> expect that, in return, they are willing to adhere to the standard :-)

Basically, what I said with different words. It is nice that we agree
on something for a change ;-).

By the way, Dirk, your patch does not have a testcase for the actual
diagnostic (please use dg-warning or dg-error as appropriate) and I
think the test for system headers is redundant since the diagnostics
machinery should not emit diagnostics for system headers unless



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list