On 27 March 2007 16:07, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> * Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-27 13:13]:
>>>> So if you are seeing this in C++, the change was intentional because
>>>> PR24924 was fixed. If you are seeing it in C and you are not using
>>>> pedantic-errors, then it is probably a bug.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the explanation - this explains what I'm seeing. Is there
>>> a good reason against changing this particular warning from
>>> CPP_DL_PEDWARN to CPP_DL_WARNING? Quite a few packages in Debian fail
>>> to build because of this and it seems overly strict to me. However, if
>>> it'll remain an error with C++ code, I'll start filing bugs on these
>>> packages.
>>
>> -pedantic asks for strict checking of rules. User should accept
>> correcting their codes (or used codes) with they ask for strict checking.
>
> I agree, but what is happening now is that "no newline at end of file"
> is an error even when -pedantic is not specified. I don't think that
> is acceptable.
>
> Ian
I just stumbled across enhancement request PR14331, which is for this same
feature. I think I should update my old patch and submit it.
I could use a little advice about the best way to add a new preprocessor
option flag setting; my original patch crudely adds a new global warning flag
and then copies it into a member in the cpp options struct during
c_common_post_options, which I think is probably not "The Right Thing To
Do"(TM), and I haven't even studied the 4.x options-handling mechanisms yet,
but what Manuel wrote in that PR implies that they have changed a bit since 3.3.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
