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