This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch] Support DEC-C extensions
- From: Douglas Rupp <rupp at gnat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:19:16 -0700
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Support DEC-C extensions
- References: <51227D85-9E15-48AB-9381-14B597C1F80B@adacore.com> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <07CC04EB-8EFF-4875-BA8B-D630026AE744@adacore.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here. This seems fairly VMS
specific so what is the downside for a target hook and user written headers?
If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a patch.
I don't think it must be restricted to system headers, as it is possible
that the user 'imports' such a function (and define it in one of VMS
favorite languages such as macro-32 or bliss).
If it's not restricted to system headers, then probably the option is
better than the target hook.