2008/6/13 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> Hi Volker, thanks for picking these issues up. I told Manuel I'd >> review the rest of the remaining pedwarns, but haven't had time to do >> it either. > > Just to chime in here: Volker, I agree with your comments. > > Jonathan, Manuel, if you would please make the time to finish this project, > that would be very much appreciated. We don't want this to be a case where > we improved the infrastructure of the compiler -- but made the user > experience worse.
Mark, I also agree with Volker comments. But I am respectfully not going to tackle this. First, because I have very little free time and I have many other things half-backed that I would like to finish. And second and more importantly, to "finish the project" as you say, just involves to "grep -n -e "pedwarn" cp/*.c and s/pedwarn/permerror/ whatever you think must be an error by default. The only "difficulty" of this process is to know whether something must be a warning or an error by default and I don't have the knowledge to decide this. And, honestly, the idea of discovering it by trial and error is not very exciting. That may take a long time and a lot of iterations. This job would be done better and faster by someone knowledgeable in the C++ standard, who could also add a comment in each warning/error stating why it is given. (In fact, you don't even need to bootstrap and run the regression testsuite: I bet there won't be any testsuite errors since the C++ testsuite can't distinguish between warnings and errors unless you included "warning: " or "error: " in the dg-* statement. And those we fixed already when we submitted the patch. Of course, bonus points would be to add those tests for each permerror so we don't regress in the future.) I am deeply sorry if I dissapoint you. But I think it is better to be honest than to silently ignore this issue. Manuel.
