------- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-20 23:26 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> In mainline, -pedantic-errors is needed. That seems weird to me, maybe Maunel
> can help here. On the other hand, a problem with library code seems also
> likely.
>
Why is it weird to need pedantic-errors to get an error for a pedantic warning?
According to the comments in the code this is well-formed although it still
requires a diagnostic.
/* This was an error in C++98 (cv-qualifiers cannot be added to
a function type), but DR 295 makes the code well-formed by
dropping the extra qualifiers. */
Again, from GCC 4.4 on, -pedantic/-pedantic-errors should work the same as for
the C front-end, that is, -pedantic enables warnings, -pedantic-errors converts
those warnings into errors. What is the problem then?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35637
