This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: -std's (was Re: v3 link failures analyzed)
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Subject: Re: -std's (was Re: v3 link failures analyzed)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: 10 Jan 2001 20:00:25 +0100
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>, <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101101207350.21823-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>
"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 counts as "understood by the compiler"? Does GCC presently
| understand C99 (the -std option is there, but many features are missing)?
If GCC fully understands C99 (for a reasonable definition of "fully")
then it is really intuitive to have -iso synonymous of -std=c99.
-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com