Re: long long, C++ testsuite and -ansi -pedantic-errors

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>]

Mike Stump <mrs@windriver.com> writes:

| > To: Mike Stump <mrs@windriver.com>
| > From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>
| > Date: 13 Jun 2000 03:06:39 +0200
| 
| > Even in 5 years, I'm not sure C++ will incorporate long long; and I
| > can wait too :-)
| 
| I am.  No need to wait though.

Well, you aren't ISO/SC22/WG21.

What you happen to think is quite distinct from what the committee
will ultimately decide. 

| > I think -ansi -pedantic should check for the language rules as
| > currently defined.
| 
| Gosh, I'm so used to developing Standards and tracking Standards in
| progress that I'd disagree.  I don't see a good reason to not track
| Standards, when we are reasonably sure we know the direction they are
| going in.  (No user burn.)

The Standard in question here is ISO 14882. I, too, am tracking it.
There is no evidence, from the works being actively done, that shows
that 'long long' will be incorporated or not. And given the amount of
effort in negociating long long in C99, the reticence expressed by
some national bodies, I don't see why it is so obvious that long long
will be part of C++-2010.


| People that want older Standards, can always ask for them, if you want
| to support that.

ISO 14882 isn't an older Standard, and there is no new C++
definition. Even the TC has greaat pain to get out.


| > Or we have to rename these options (or change their documentations).
| 
| I don't see the opinions or their documentation as wrong. 

The documentation says:

-ansi
In C mode, support all ANSI standard C programs.  In C++ mode,
remove GNU extensions that conflict with ISO C++.

-pedantic
Issue all the warnings demanded by strict ANSI C and ISO C++;
reject all programs that use forbidden extensions.


Does 'long long' conflict with ISO C++? Yes, if no diagnostics is
issued. 

Users expects GCC to behave in accordance with its documentation.
We have no bussiness in feeding them with unfounded expectations.

If you do insist on having then I would suggest

	-behave-according-to-mike-s-speculations.

At least, the option would be self-descriptive and there would be no
need to document it.

-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC                             http://www.codesourcery.com