On 27/03/07, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-27 14:01]:
> >Thanks for the explanation - this explains what I'm seeing. Is there
> >a good reason against changing this particular warning from
> >CPP_DL_PEDWARN to CPP_DL_WARNING? Quite a few packages in Debian fail
> >to build because of this and it seems overly strict to me. However, if
> >it'll remain an error with C++ code, I'll start filing bugs on these
> >packages.
>
> I cannot answer why this is a pedwarn or why C++ emits pedantic errors
> by default.
Sorry for not being clearer; this question wasn't specifically
directed at you. Hopefully someone else, maybe Joseph, can answer it.
Nevertheless, if this is indeed a diagnostic required by the standard,
perhaps we should just conditionalize it on the presence of -pedantic
in the command-line (rather than being unconditional as it is now).
Cheers,
Manuel.
