error: "no newline at end of file"

[gdr@cs.tamu.edu]

Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez@gmail.com>:

> On 27 Mar 2007 11:53:18 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs.tamu.edu> wrote:
>> Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM> writes:
>>
>> | On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 02:23:47PM +0100, Manuel L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez wro=
> te:
>> | > On 27/03/07, Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> wrote:
>> | > >* Manuel L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez <lopezibanez@gmail.com> [2007-03-27 14:0=
> 8]:
>> | > >> C++ preprocessor emits errors by default for nonconformant code,
>> | > >> following the C++ frot-end default behaviour. Users can use the
>> | > >> -fpermissive option to downgrade these diagnostics from errors to
>> | > >> warnings.
>> | > >
>> | > >s/frot-end/front-end/
>> | > >
>> | > >I'm not sure whether "nonconformant code" is specific enough.  Apart
>> | > >from this, it looks good.
>> | >
>> | > It comes from the definition of fpermissive in invoke.texi.
>> |
>> | Users aren't going to know from this language what has changed.  Manuel=
> ,
>> | since you're the guy who has been studying the warnings lately: which
>> | other preprocessor diagnostics, other than "no newline at end of file",
>> | are affected by this change?
>>
>> I believe there is a bug in the diagnostic flag setting.
>>
>> A pedwarn is a warning by default.  It becomes a hard error only if
>> -pedantic.  If that is not happening, then we have a bug.
>>
>
> Then we have a bug indeed. Since 3.4.6 at least. Notice that such a
> change is going to downgrade a lot of current errors to warnings.

my understanding of pedwarn (since over a decade) is I explained.
Now, if we do have some good diagnostics, we should not lose them,
as a matter of restoring the traditional meaning of pedwarns.
Do you have an approximate list of those diagnostics?

> Nonetheless, if you really think it is a bug, I am willing to prepare
> a patch to fix it in both the front-end and the preprocessor.

If a pedwarn is an error without -pedantic, then we have a bug.

>
> Cheers,
>
> Manuel.
>