Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Bug report rejected as conformant
From: Marc Glisse (marc.glisse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-13 18:55:51

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

> I recently reported a preprocessor bug in Oracle C++ 12.6 on their online
> forum when compiling a C program example. I even cited the C11 standard in
> showing that Oracle C++ 12.6's actions were non-conformant. The answer I was
> given, from an Oracle C++ developer who said he was a member of the C++
> standard committee, is that since Oracle C++ 12.6 gives a warning message
> rather than a compiler error the compiler was compliant with the C standard,
> since the standard only requires a diagnostic message to be considered
> standard compliant when it does not implement the compiler according to the
> standard, and that a warning was a diagnostic message. Furthermore since
> there was a way to force the particular warning to be considered an error,
> Oracle was not going to change their compiler. At that point I "lost it" so
> to speak.
> I cannot conceive that any C/C++ standard would specify that giving a warning
> rather than an error, when not complying with the C/C++ standard, would then
> make the compiler compliant. Comments ?

Uh, that's what all compilers do all the time when they implement
extensions to the standard. With gcc, you even need to specify -Wpedantic
to get those required diagnostics. I am really surprised that this is the
first compiler for which you notice this...

Marc Glisse

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at