"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 27 Mar 2007 21:11:56 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | In C, a pedwarn is a warning by default, an error with -pedantic-errors.
| > |
| > | In C++, a pedwarn is an error by default, a warning with -fpermissive.
| >
| > You're describing a defect, not the intended semantics.
| >
| > In C, a pedwarn is a warning by default, an error with -pedantic errors.
| >
| > In C++, a pedwarn is a warning by default, an error with -pedantic.
|
| This is not the first time this has come up.
| In fact this was done on purpose back in 1998:
| http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1998-12/msg00137.html
That is the bit I was missing, and that explains my historical
confusion about the change. Many thanks Andrew, and apologies to
Joseph and others.
[...]
| " * Messages about non-conformant code that we can still handle ("pedwarns")
| are now errors by default, rather than warnings. This can be reverted
| with -fpermissive, and is overridden by -pedantic or -pedantic-errors."
|
| So I don't think this was a mistake or a bug at all. It was on
| purpose for sure.
Yes, definitely.
-- Gaby
