On 1 June 2017 at 13:55, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2017-06-01 13:45:07 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 1 June 2017 at 12:52, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> > The goal of -pedantic-errors is to *detect* that the developer writes >> > something like the above instead of just: >> > >> > #include <stdint.h> >> >> No, the goal of -pedantic-errors is not to be a portability checker or >> conformance tester. >> >> It's to disable standard-conflicting GNU extensions so that you get an >> error when the standard requires a diagnostic. > > What??? Strings longer than the C90 limit are certainly not > GNU extensions!!! IMHO that warning is an oddity, and does not match the The existence of one warning that does something different doesn't change the documented and intended meaning of -pedantic-errors, no matter how much you wish it did, and no matter how many exclamation marks you use. RTFM, using -pedantic or -pedantic-errors to test for strict ISO conformance does not work. That's not what it's for.
