------- 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 is a pedantic warning and not > simply an unconditional warning? primary.c: if (x_hex && pedantic primary.c- && (gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_GNU, "Extension: Hexadecimal " This gives only an error with pedantic set (and -std=f95 or -std=f2003). Otherwise, -pedantic is quite interwoven with the rest: options.c, e.g.: if (pedantic) { gfc_option.warn_ampersand = 1; gfc_option.warn_tabs = 0; } No idea how to untangle -pedantic from -Wtabs or -Wampersand if -pedantic-errors has been given, but -Werror has not. Silently accepting and ignoring it, seems not to be the right way. The simple solution is not to accept -pedantic-errors (and to point to -Werror) or to turn on -Werror for -pedantic-errors. Both are rather easy solutions - and feel a bit clumsy. It needs presumably quite a lot of work to support -pedantic-errors properly. First and simpler step should be to change "Warning:" into "Error:" for -Werror to be in line with the C front end. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929