On 10/08/2016 02:48, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > TL;DR If the warning is enabled by -Wpedantic, it should be an error > with -Werror=pedantic and it should use cpp_pedwarning. Whether it > should be enabled by -Wpedantic is more difficult to say. > > -pedantic is equivalent to -Wpedantic. If -Wx is enabled by -Wy, then > -Werror=y implies -Werror=x. Every warning enabled by -Wpedantic works > in the same way and I don't see why this one should be different. > > Moreover, I think that this was a latent bug in libcpp: the code > should have used cpp_pedwarning instead of cpp_warning. This is > https://gcc.gnu.org/PR66505 > Quoting https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DiagnosticsGuidelines#Types_of_diagnostics > : "The same rules apply to libcpp, which uses cpp_pedwarning (instead > of pedwarn), CPP_PEDANTIC (pfile) (instead of pedantic) and > CPP_W_PEDANTIC (instead of OPT_Wpedantic). In particular, you may use > cpp_pedwarning without CPP_W_PEDANTIC, but you may not use > CPP_W_PEDANTIC without cpp_pedwarning and you may not use CPP_PEDANTIC > (pfile) without CPP_W_PEDANTIC."
But pedwarns are for errors mandated by the standard; this one is not. Let's just move it from -Wpedantic to -Wextra. Paolo
