--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-26 18:32 ---
Subject: Bug 31988
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Oct 26 18:32:41 2007
New Revision: 129657
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=129657
Log:
cp/
2007-10-26 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-10-26 18:34 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 15:43 ---
Patch at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg01711.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31988
--- Comment #3 from andrew dot stubbs at st dot com 2007-09-28 16:00
---
I'm not a GCC expert, but that patch looks like it will silently change the
behaviour of the compiler when -pedantic is not given.
I would suggest that the first parameter should either be a regular,
non-pedantic
--- Comment #6 from andrew dot stubbs at st dot com 2007-09-28 16:28
---
(In reply to comment #4)
When -pedantic is not given (the default) a pedwarn is an hard error. A
pedwarn
becomes a warning when -permissive is passes (and the code is thus accepted as
an extension, which I
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 16:11 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I'm not a GCC expert, but that patch looks like it will silently change the
behaviour of the compiler when -pedantic is not given.
When -pedantic is not given (the default) a pedwarn is an hard
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-28 16:20 ---
About the behavior when -fpermissive is passed - essentially, removing the
default and going ahead, I followed the other pedwarn in the same function -
but the alternate behavior, not doing anything special and just going
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-09-22 00:04 ---
On it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
