Re: Behavior of -Wtraditional WRT numeric suffixes and docs

["Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>]

 > From: Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>
 > 
 > Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:-
 > 
 > > IIRC, one of your recent patches made the following paragraph in the
 > > docs obsolete when describing items warned about in -Wtraditional, (at
 > > least when using the integrated preprocessor.)  True?
 > > 
 > >  > @item
 > >  > The `U' integer constant suffix, or the `F' or `L' floating point
 > >  > constant suffixes.  (Traditonal C does support the `L' suffix on
 > >  > integer constants.)  Note, these suffixes appear in macros defined
 > >  > in the system headers of most modern systems, e.g. the _MIN/_MAX
 > >  > macros in limits.h.  Use of these macros can lead to spurious
 > >  > warnings as they do not necessarily reflect whether the code in
 > >  > question is any less portable to traditional C given that suitable
 > >  > backup definitions are provided.
 > > 
 > > I think everything after the work "Note," no longer applies if you use
 > > the integrated cpp.
 > > 
 > > Should we just remove it or add the caveat about when it applies?
 > 
 > Yes, you're right.  Your call on whether to just delete it, or say
 > it applies to GCC versions earlier than 3.0.  If these
 > -Wtraditional checks were something we only introduced between
 > major releases, and have not always been there, we might as well
 > kill the note altogether.
 > Neil.

(Sorry this sat in my inbox for a month.)

Regarding major releases, I know this warning wasn't in 2.95, but I
don't know if e.g. the RH-2.96 had it.  FWIW, I added the feature on
Aug 10, 2000.

Anyway, here's my attempt at rewording the documentation.

Ok for trunk and 3.0 branch?

		--Kaveh


2001-04-11  Kaveh R. Ghazi  <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>

	* cpp.texi (-Wtraditional): Update description.

	* invoke.texi (-Wtraditional): Likewise.

diff -rup /tmp/foo/egcs-CVS20010410/gcc/cpp.texi egcs-CVS20010410/gcc/cpp.texi
--- /tmp/foo/egcs-CVS20010410/gcc/cpp.texi	Thu Mar 15 07:43:12 2001
+++ egcs-CVS20010410/gcc/cpp.texi	Wed Apr 11 16:46:39 2001
@@ -3339,7 +3339,8 @@ Requests @samp{-Wcomment}, @samp{-Wtrigr
 @item -Wtraditional
 @findex -Wtraditional
 Warn about certain constructs that behave differently in traditional and
-ISO C@.
+ISO C@.  Also warn about ISO C constructs that have no traditional C
+equivalent, and/or problematic constructs which should be avoided.
 
 @itemize @bullet
 @item
@@ -3368,10 +3369,9 @@ The unary plus operator.
 The `U' integer constant suffix.  (Traditonal C does support the `L'
 suffix on integer constants.)  Note, these suffixes appear in macros
 defined in the system headers of most modern systems, e.g. the _MIN/_MAX
-macros in limits.h.  Use of these macros can lead to spurious warnings
-as they do not necessarily reflect whether the code in question is any
-less portable to traditional C given that suitable backup definitions
-are provided.
+macros in limits.h.  Use of these macros in user code might normally
+lead to spurious warnings, however gcc's integrated preprocessor has
+enough context to avoid warning in these cases.
 @end itemize
 
 @item -Wundef
diff -rup /tmp/foo/egcs-CVS20010410/gcc/invoke.texi egcs-CVS20010410/gcc/invoke.texi
--- /tmp/foo/egcs-CVS20010410/gcc/invoke.texi	Tue Apr 10 18:36:20 2001
+++ egcs-CVS20010410/gcc/invoke.texi	Wed Apr 11 16:46:40 2001
@@ -2055,7 +2055,8 @@ probably mistaken.
 
 @item -Wtraditional (C only)
 Warn about certain constructs that behave differently in traditional and
-ISO C.
+ISO C.  Also warn about ISO C constructs that have no traditional C
+equivalent, and/or problematic constructs which should be avoided.
 
 @itemize @bullet
 @item
@@ -2085,9 +2086,9 @@ The `U' integer constant suffix, or the 
 constant suffixes.  (Traditonal C does support the `L' suffix on integer
 constants.)  Note, these suffixes appear in macros defined in the system
 headers of most modern systems, e.g. the _MIN/_MAX macros in limits.h.
-Use of these macros can lead to spurious warnings as they do not
-necessarily reflect whether the code in question is any less portable to
-traditional C given that suitable backup definitions are provided.
+Use of these macros in user code might normally lead to spurious
+warnings, however gcc's integrated preprocessor has enough context to
+avoid warning in these cases.
 
 @item
 A function declared external in one block and then used after the end of