[C++, diagnostic, obvious?] Typo in fix for PR 35058

Manuel López-Ibáñez lopezibanez@gmail.com
Thu Jan 29 12:58:00 GMT 2009


2009/1/29 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>:
>>
> Ok. I'll try to look further into both, then. But I have other things in
> my queue, thus if you feel like taking care of this one, just go ahead,
> I would appreciate it.
>

I am sorry. I am too busy with my academic life now to work on GCC.
This is a regression but not too urgent: We just missed a diagnostic
that can be restored by using the appropriate flags. The only decision
to be made is whether the offending code is accepted as an extension
(we should use pedwarn) or as legacy code we normally error but allow
to compile (we should not be testing pedantic and warn_* ).

Cheers,

Manuel.



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list