On 1 June 2017 at 14:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > 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 ... behaviour of other pedwarns. > > 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.
