"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 27 Mar 2007 21:11:56 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | In C, a pedwarn is a warning by default, an error with -pedantic-errors. | > | | > | In C++, a pedwarn is an error by default, a warning with -fpermissive. | > | > You're describing a defect, not the intended semantics. | > | > In C, a pedwarn is a warning by default, an error with -pedantic errors. | > | > In C++, a pedwarn is a warning by default, an error with -pedantic. | | This is not the first time this has come up. | In fact this was done on purpose back in 1998: | http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1998-12/msg00137.html
That is the bit I was missing, and that explains my historical confusion about the change. Many thanks Andrew, and apologies to Joseph and others. [...] | " * Messages about non-conformant code that we can still handle ("pedwarns") | are now errors by default, rather than warnings. This can be reverted | with -fpermissive, and is overridden by -pedantic or -pedantic-errors." | | So I don't think this was a mistake or a bug at all. It was on | purpose for sure. Yes, definitely. -- Gaby