This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: C99 usage in gcc

From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
To: Bruce Stephens <bruce at cenderis dot demon dot co dot uk>
Cc: GCC List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:16:59 -0800
Subject: Re: C99 usage in gcc
References: <877jzal3rz.fsf@wasabisystems.com><C02436AE-52C3-11D8-9D26-000393A6D2F2@physics.uc.edu><16410.14766.949435.377839@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com><Pine.LNX.4.58.0401301433440.3429@wotan.suse.de><87wu79zcos.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk>

Bruce Stephens <bruce@cenderis.demon.co.uk> writes:

>> It is a pedwarn, hence you need -pedantic also.
>
> Which is useful, except that it also complains about:
>
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> // foo
> #endif

As it should.  This will be misinterpreted by a plain-C89 compiler;
comment stripping happens before #ifdef processing.

zw

Follow-Ups:
- Re: C99 usage in gcc
  - From: Andrew Haley

References:
- build failure on mainline due to java/expr.c
  - From: Ben Elliston
- Re: build failure on mainline due to java/expr.c
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- C99 usage in gcc [was Re: build failure on mainline due to java/expr.c]
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: C99 usage in gcc [was Re: build failure on mainline due tojava/expr.c]
  - From: Michael Matz
- Re: C99 usage in gcc [was Re: build failure on mainline due tojava/expr.c]
  - From: Bruce Stephens

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