In article <20031215221417.GA17970@netbsd.org>,
James Chacon <jmc@netbsd.org> wrote:
>I tend to agree with the logic in the PR as #error was used before C89 as
>a way to stop the pre-processor even though it wasn't a valid token. Doing
>what gcc suggests gives you the opposite behavior which probably isn't
>expected. Therefore #error should probably be excluded from this warning.
>
>Anyone have a problem with the attached patch?

Yes, this is a slippery slope. What are you planning to do with the #elif
warning for example?

christos