Date: 19 Jul 2003 11:32:56 +0200 From: Peter Kadau <peter.kadau@tuebingen.mpg.de> To: LLeweLLyn Reese <llewelly@lifesupport.shutdown.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc-3.3 issues Message-ID: <1058607176.23615.8.camel@straycat> In-Reply-To: <x3d6g7nv2l.fsf@lifesupport.shutdown.com> References: <20030718191649.GB84963@freefall.freebsd.org> <1058556984.32024.24.camel@straycat> <x3d6g7nv2l.fsf@lifesupport.shutdown.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi ! > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3/gcc/Warning-Options.html#Warning%20Options Hmm, that's exactly as in the info page. > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3/gcc/C---Dialect-Options.html#C++%20Dialect%20Options > and search for permissive, to see the condition Alexander speaks of. Well, here it is: -fpermissive Downgrade messages about nonconformant code from errors to warnings. By default, G++ effectively sets -pedantic-errors without -pedantic; this option reverses that. This behavior and this option are superseded by -pedantic, which works as it does for GNU C. I admit, I'm not a native speaker, so please correct me. Doesn't that mean, if you don't specify any pedantic, it defaults to -pedantic-errors for C++, but if you specify -pedantic, you don't get errors for warnings like it should be... ?? Cheers Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1058607176.23615.8.camel>