On 01/06/17 14:57, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2017-06-01 14:51:52 +0200, Toebs Douglass wrote: >> On 01/06/17 14:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> 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. >> >> [snip] >> >> Thanks for that, Jonathan. >> >> I can't speak for others, but it clears things up for me. > > No, that's definitely *not* clear! I'm still waiting the answer for > the strings longer than the C90 limit. Well, to be clear, I was only speaking for myself - I am really not qualified to participate in this conversation (and should really have restrained myself from posting, but I'm human :-) What was in my mind was the description of the *intent* of the switch. Although I may be wrong, I think it doesn't include the kind of check being proposed here. I think the check being proposed here *should* exist, but not from this switch.
