[Bug c/545] -std=c89 defines macros it shouldn't

["jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=545



------- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk  2003-07-06 01:03 -------
Subject: Re:  -std=c89 defines macros it shouldn't

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk wrote:

> > ------- Additional Comments From neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-07-05 20:51 -------
> > There's been some serious switch handling overhauls; what's the status of this?
> > Currently it's a vague bug with no testcase, so I don't like it. :-)
> 
> It's nothing to do with switches, it's a config/ spec problem.  It's way
> better than it used to be, but it's still a bug.

Indeed, the basic test is to grep for "ansi" in config/.  Any reference in
specs that doesn't also check for "std=c" and "std=i" is a bug.  (Most if
not all references should actually move from specs to code executed in cc1
that checks flag_iso; only where there's some reason it needs to stay in
specs should the std=c and std=i checks be added there.)