[Bug c/28368] -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension

2008-02-16 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-16 16:29 --- Subject: Bug 28368 Author: manu Date: Sat Feb 16 16:29:12 2008 New Revision: 132367 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132367 Log: 2008-02-16 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug c/28368] -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension

2008-02-16 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-16 18:16 --- Subject: Bug 28368 Author: manu Date: Sat Feb 16 18:15:20 2008 New Revision: 132368 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132368 Log: 2008-02-16 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug c/28368] -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension

2008-02-16 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-16 18:20 --- The new description in GCC 4.3 and GCC 4.2.4 should clarify this from now on. -- manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/28368] -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension

2008-01-18 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 12:09 --- (In reply to comment #1) This is also true for C++ unless -pedantic is specified (which is confusing since I thought -pedantic-errors was the default for C++, but apparently this changed at some point). Using '-Wall

[Bug c/28368] -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension

2007-03-08 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-08 15:52 --- (In reply to comment #5) Subject: Re: -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: Sorry, I still don't understand what is the difference between

[Bug c/28368] -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension

2007-03-07 Thread lloyd at randombit dot net
--- Comment #1 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2007-03-07 14:47 --- This is also true for C++ unless -pedantic is specified (which is confusing since I thought -pedantic-errors was the default for C++, but apparently this changed at some point). Using '-Wall -Wextra -ansi -std=c++98'

[Bug c/28368] -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension

2007-03-07 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-07 17:57 --- The documentation says that you should use -pedantic to warn about GCC extensions[*], so I am not sure whether this is valid. But honestly, from the description of -std=, I would understand that GNU extensions are

[Bug c/28368] -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension

2007-03-07 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-03-07 18:04 --- Subject: Re: -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: The documentation says that you should use -pedantic to warn about GCC extensions[*], so I am

[Bug c/28368] -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension

2007-03-07 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-07 18:11 --- (In reply to comment #3) Subject: Re: -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension Where the standard specified with @option{-std} represents a GNU extended dialect of C, such as @samp{gnu89} or @samp{gnu99},

[Bug c/28368] -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension

2007-03-07 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-03-07 21:06 --- Subject: Re: -std=c89 doesn't warn about gcc's ?: extension On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: Sorry, I still don't understand what is the difference between -std=c89 and -std=gnu89.