Is -Werror=pedantic necessary?

[Christopher James Halse Rogers]

On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 09:39 +0800, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
> I would prefer to keep pedantic mode. Issues like using C99 
> designated-initializers in C++ are actually compliance issues you should 
> be told about. It's nice to know when you're no longer using the 
> language standard you told the compiler you would use.

This is what I'm asking - is it really? Especially given that using
-pedantic does *not* guarantee you're using the language standard you
told the compiler you would use anyway. 

The standard is useful to not tie you into a single compiler, but it's
not like any sensible compiler is going to support C++11 but *not* C99,
and our clang builds already guarantee that we're not tied into a single
compiler.

> 
> If you need to include other peoples' code which use non-compliant 
> language features then why not just:

It's not that I want to use other peoples' non-compliant code. It's that
*I* want to write non-compliant code. Or, rather, I want to write code
that I know all non-stupid compilers are going to interpret correctly,
but isn't strictly in the C++11 spec.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/mir-devel/attachments/20131115/6010ef56/attachment.pgp>