[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

2007-03-05 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-05 17:05 --- I am not sure if gfortran diagnostics are different, but... are you sure that particular warning is a pedantic warning and not simply an unconditional warning? AFAIK, pedantic-errors will turn only pedantic warnings

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

2007-03-05 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-05 18:08 --- I am not sure if gfortran diagnostics are different, I think gfortran handles the warnings quite different, not that I know much about the details of the C frontend. but... are you sure that particular warning is

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

2007-03-05 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-05 18:15 --- (In reply to comment #4) I am not sure if gfortran diagnostics are different, I think gfortran handles the warnings quite different, not that I know much about the details of the C frontend. Ah, OK. Then

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

2007-02-27 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-27 15:33 --- The same is true for -Werror. Warnings still give an exit status code of zero. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

2007-02-27 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-27 23:33 --- The same is true for -Werror. I have to correct myself: -Werror gives a non-zero exit status, but still writes Warning:. I think gfortran should follow gcc by changing also the label from Warning: to Error: for