This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Still a lot of C++ files getting "fixed"
- To: mark at codesourcery dot com, martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de
- Subject: Re: Still a lot of C++ files getting "fixed"
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:18:47 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: austern at isolde dot engr dot sgi dot com, austern at sgi dot com, autogen at linuxbox dot com, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
> From: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de>
>
> -ansi should only select standard semantics when both interpretations
> of some code are meaningful (where gcc picks GNU C semantics by
> default). If the code is invalid for strict ANSI C, gcc should accept
> it as an extension - you'd need -pedantic to have the compiler reject
> it.
If we decide not to fix // comments in system headers, then IMHO, we
cannot have -pedantic *reject* // in system headers. Otherwise
-pedantic becomes useless for systems which have this problem.
If we want to *warn* about it, we have the same problem, it becomes
gratuitously noisy for platforms which use the // comment style in
their headers.
So I don't think we should even warn about it. I can't imagine a
system header would have a "foo //**/bar" type problem, and if it does
then we fix *that* header like Bruce said.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Internet Solutions