--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-05 18:15 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > I am not sure if gfortran diagnostics are different,
>
> I think gfortran handles the warnings quite different, not that I know much
> about the details of the C frontend.
>
Ah, OK. Then
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-05 18:08 ---
> I am not sure if gfortran diagnostics are different,
I think gfortran handles the warnings quite different, not that I know much
about the details of the C frontend.
> but... are you sure that particular warning i
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-05 17:05 ---
I am not sure if gfortran diagnostics are different, but... are you sure that
particular warning is a pedantic warning and not simply an unconditional
warning? AFAIK, pedantic-errors will turn only pedantic warnings int
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-27 23:33 ---
> The same is true for -Werror.
I have to correct myself:
-Werror gives a non-zero exit status, but still writes "Warning:". I think
gfortran should follow gcc by changing also the label from "Warning:" to
"Error:" f
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-27 15:33 ---
The same is true for -Werror.
Warnings still give an exit status code of zero.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929
