------- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 13:33 -------
What is the rationale for being conditional on pedantic? Is this forbidden by
!c99 and we accept it as an extension?
I understand that it should not be an error in c99 but what to warn is our
decision even if the standard allows it. And a duplicate qualifier (as in the
example) may indicate a mistake. I would rather have it as a pedwarn for
!flag_isoc99 and a normal warning otherwise (perhaps controlled by an option or
by -Wextra). As it is now, it is impossible to get this warning if one is using
c99.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43651
