On 2017-06-01 15:23:18 +0200, Toebs Douglass wrote: > 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. OK, so following the various answers, I've reported a bug "-Woverlength-strings should no longer be implied by -Wpedantic" to avoid the confusion: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80942 Then, there could be a warning about the use of <stdint.h> in C90 that would have no relations with -pedantic. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
