On 14/01/2008, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 13/01/2008, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > I think all others should change to permerrors. > > I only meant all others in cp/decl.c of course - here are the remaining files. > Again I've only listed the ones that should remain as pedwarns and > other special cases - most change to permerrors. >
Thanks for doing this! > Another interesting one. Variadic templates work in C++98 mode and > are used internally, but currently you have to say -fpermissive to use > them in user code. That flag is *usually* needed for > backward-compatibility, not enabling *future* extensions. That is because we didn't have permerror and the semantics of fpermissive were not clear. Now it is evident that this should be a pedwarn. Wow, you found probably the best example of why the current C++ FE behaviour is confusing. > So is support for variadic templates in -std=gnu98 mode an official > extension, or a detail not-for-public-consumption? Well, right now you can use it if you use fpermissive, so if it wasn't for public-consumption, using pedwarn instead of error was not the right thing in the first place. So pedwarn. > I think for consistency with the new proposed behaviour it should > check flag_permissive, instead of !flag_pedantic_errors, do you agree? > Yes, this is the type of thing I am looking when reviewing your suggestions, since they are a potential source of bugs. In my patch I changed a few. > In cp/typeck.c the pedwarns guarded by pedantic should stay as pedwarns. > on line 5356 there is: > if (pedantic) > /* Only issue a warning, as we have always supported this > where possible, and it is necessary in some cases. DR 195 > addresses this issue, but as of 2004/10/26 is still in > drafting. */ > warning (0, "ISO C++ forbids casting between pointer-to-function and > pointer-to-object"); > > This could switch to a pedwarn, since that will still be a warning > under the permerror proposal. That would mean it can be turned into a > fatal error with -pedantic-errors instead of -Werror, which would be > consistent with other warnings that are only enabled by -pedantic. > I'm not sure how "conditionally-supported behaviour" should interact > with -pedantic-errors so let's leave as a warning for now. This is another example of trying to workaround the wrong default of pedwarns. This should be a pedwarn. The reason why is a warning is that pedantic-errors was active by default and that didn't make sense. We are changing this, so we don't need this hack anymore. > Is that all of them? Would you prefer a patch to make the changes or > are you going to go through them yourself anyway? I agree with all your other suggestions. I will try to go through them in the following days and submit a follow-up patch to the ones already submitted. Many thanks! That was impressive. Manuel.
