http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-22
19:17:51 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Sun Apr 22 19:17:47 2012
New Revision: 186681
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186681
Log:
2012-04-22 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-02-17
00:22:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 26688
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26688
patch
Bootstrapped and regression tested, but without documentation updated or
testcase. Anyw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Denis.Excoffier at airbus
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-04 08:27 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
>
> I do not object to -Wpedantic.
Ah, ok! Then, I will start with this and worry about the other warnings when
their time comes. Thanks!
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-04 01:46
---
Subject: Re: -Werror=edantic
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Let's restrict to -pedantic first. It is the only warning flag that doesn't
> start with "-W". This breaks some code that exp
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-02 15:22
---
I see, I had only a quick look to the audit trail and thought it was a less
trivial issue ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 14:24 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> By the way, the subject should read -Werror=pedantic, right?
>
Well, it depends. We actually print -Werror=edantic. ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-02 12:18
---
By the way, the subject should read -Werror=pedantic, right?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 10:56 ---
Why? All of them do, except -pedantic. I don't see any reason for -pedantic
being exceptional. Or can I start proposing warnings options that do not start
with -W?
Should we introduce a special case for pedantic (code
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 09:22 ---
Then the right fix would be not to assume that all such options start with -W,
no?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 08:07 ---
Related PR 37187
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 06:58 ---
I knew this couldn't be easy ;-)
Let's restrict to -pedantic first. It is the only warning flag that doesn't
start with "-W". This breaks some code that expects that every warning flag
starts with -W. I want to introdu
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-02 01:22 ---
Subject: Re: -Werror=edantic
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> We also should add a -Wpedantic-default (or -Wpedantic-required) for pedwarns
> enabled by default (not by -pedantic).
Those
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-01 21:53 ---
man...@gcc11:~$ ~/test2/161617M/build/gcc/cc1 empty2.c -pedantic-errors
empty2.c:1:1: error: struct has no members [-pedantic]
empty2.c:2:1: error: unnamed struct/union that defines no instances
man...@gcc11:~$ ~/test
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-01 21:42 ---
I will propose to introduce -Wpedantic as the canonical name of pedantic. This
will also make -Werror=pedantic work. I don't see any reason why -pedantic has
to be special except historical. We can keep the old forms as
17 matches
Mail list logo
