This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: -std's (was Re: v3 link failures analyzed)
- To: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
- Subject: Re: -std's (was Re: v3 link failures analyzed)
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:17:39 +0000 (GMT)
- cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>, Robert Lipe <robertl at sco dot com>, <libstdc++-v3 at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Phil Edwards wrote:
> [*] Clause [1.2] seems to want the language in C89/C90 with the library
> in C94.
I asked before on the gcc list without getting a definitive response; does
this mean that -pedantic format checking, for C++, should act like C94 for
C (i.e., allowing %lc and %ls formats)?
c-common.c presently has
/* The C standard version C++ is treated as equivalent to
or inheriting from, for the purpose of format features supported. */
#define CPLUSPLUS_STD_VER STD_C89
More subtle, and not yet relevant to the compiler: what about reserved
function names? C94 does not reserve the function names in <wchar.h> and
<wctype.h> unless one of those headers is included somewhere in the
program. This means that, when wide string format checking support is
added, functions such as wprintf should only get their format attributes
by default in C99 mode (or one of the GNU modes) - but not for
-std=iso9899:199409. Are these names reserved in C++?
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk