Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc!garcon!garcon.cso.uiuc.edu!grunwald
From: grunwald@guitar.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.g++.bug
Subject: Overload -> warning?
Message-ID: <GRUNWALD.89Mar15195856@guitar.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 16 Mar 89 01:58:56 GMT
Sender: news@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Lines: 45


Should overload errors be warnings now? Is there any reason to complain about
them unless -pedantic is set? The original intent of overloads was
(so I thought) to decide when an unambigious name was needed. Since this
is now the default action, are errors needed?

Also in toplev.c, I think that the reaction to specifying -g in a COFF
environment is a little strong. I think it's an over-sight since there
is code following the calls to fatal. The following fixes it.

*** toplev.c	Wed Mar 15 19:54:28 1989
--- toplev.c.orig	Wed Mar 15 19:53:23 1989
***************
*** 1857,1868 ****
  	  write_symbols = SDB_DEBUG;
  	else if (!strcmp (str, "g"))
  	  {
! 	    warning ("SDB+ symbol information not supported yet: use -g0");
  	    write_symbols = SDB_DEBUG;
  	  }
  	else if (!strcmp (str, "G"))
  	  {
! 	    warning ("SDB+ symbol information not supported yet: use -G0");
  	    write_symbols = SDB_DEBUG;
  	  }
  #endif
--- 1857,1868 ----
  	  write_symbols = SDB_DEBUG;
  	else if (!strcmp (str, "g"))
  	  {
! 	    fatal ("SDB+ symbol information not supported yet: use -g0");
  	    write_symbols = SDB_DEBUG;
  	  }
  	else if (!strcmp (str, "G"))
  	  {
! 	    fatal ("SDB+ symbol information not supported yet: use -G0");
  	    write_symbols = SDB_DEBUG;
  	  }
  #endif
 

--
Dirk Grunwald
Univ. of Illinois
grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu