This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch] Support DEC-C extensions


On Oct 3, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Douglas Rupp wrote:
> 
>> On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 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?
> 
> The language accepted by the compiler in the user's source code (as 
> opposed to in system headers) shouldn't depend on the target except for 
> certain well-defined areas such as target attributes and built-in 
> functions; behaving the same across different systems is an important 
> feature of GCC.  This isn't one of those areas of target-dependence; it's 
> generic syntax rather than e.g. exploiting a particular processor feature.

So the consensus is for a dedicated option.  Which one do you prefer ?

-funnamed-variadic-parameter
-fpointless-variadic-functions
-fallow-parameterless-variadic-functions

I will update my patch once this is settled.

Thanks,
Tristan.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]