grunwald@guitar.cs.uiuc.edu (03/16/89)
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