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: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Subject: Re: -std's (was Re: v3 link failures analyzed)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: 10 Jan 2001 21:39:25 +0100
- Cc: gdr at codesourcery dot com, jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200101101932.LAA18803@kankakee.wrs.com>
Mike Stump <mrs@windriver.com> writes:
| > To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
| > Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>, <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>,
| > <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
| > From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>
| > Date: 10 Jan 2001 20:00:25 +0100
|
| > "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:
|
| > | On 10 Jan 2001, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > |
| > | > Thanks. Now I understand the motivation. But I still think that
| > | > there should be an alias for the most recent standard in effect
| > | > (and understood by the compiler).
| > |
| > | Under what circumstances would such an option be useful?
|
| > When you just want to compile a program with the most recent
| > standard without having to keep that of xxx:yyyy. We shouldn't get
| > more pendatic than necessary. It is a practical matter.
|
| What is wrong with having -std be that option?
Nothing.
But why would '-iso' be more difficult to accept than '-std' ?
-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com