On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 11:55:38PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > Another minor fix: use loc instead of input_location. Also add > > missing OPT_Wpedantic. > > Why do you say it's missing? A default pedwarn generally means "this is > dubious code, not allowed by ISO C, but we don't want to make it a hard > error" (and the trend is more to making such things hard errors, rather > than limiting them to -pedantic). > > For the *first* such change ("not computable at load time"), I think it's > already conditional on (pedantic && !flag_isoc99), based on the setting of > require_constant_elements, and so using OPT_Wpedantic is appropriate. But > I think the second represents an undesirable change to how the compiler > behaves - code such as > > int f(); > int a = 1 ? 1 : f(); > > *should* be diagnosed by default rather than needing -pedantic. If you
Yeah, this case is even now diagnosted by default (for this we warn in digest_init). > think this case also only affects for form of diagnostics that were > already only given if pedantic, please explain further why this is the > case. Right. I added OPT_Wpedantic to second pedwarn_init ("initializer element is not a constant expression"), because this warning was output only when using -pedantic and C89, but it didn't say "[-Wpedantic]", thus it looked like the warning is enabled by default. The reason is that this pedwarn is guarded by require_constant_elements, which is, as you said, dependent on (pedantic && !flag_isoc99) in start_init. Just for the record, this pedwarn warns e.g. on double sin (double); void fn (int *p) { double d[] = { sin (1.0) }; } So the patch doesn't suppress any warnings, it only adds "[-Wpedantic]" where it should be (there might be other cases where "[-Wpedantic]" is missing). Marek