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: zack at wolery dot cumb dot org
- 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 15:18:55 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: austern at sgi dot com, autogen at linuxbox dot com, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com
> From: Zack Weinberg <zack@wolery.cumb.org>
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 12:08:49PM -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> > > From: Zack Weinberg <zack@wolery.cumb.org>
> > >
> > > > So it is not a great leap to do the same for -ansi. It can be
> > > > pedantically ANSI for user code, and more relaxed about system
> > > > headers, IMHO.
> > >
> > > If we're going to go down this road, we might consider also
> > > disabling pedantic complaints about a token after #else/#endif in
> > > the system headers. On SunOS, at least half the files modified
> > > have only that change.
> > > zw
> >
> > Sounds like a good idea.
> >
> > Are you volunteering to write a patch to cccp/cpplib? :-)
>
> I'd be happy to :)
>
> Here is a completely untested patch for tokens after #else/#endif.
> I'll commit the cpplib half of it after testing.
Wow, thanks! Once this is applied, you'll nuke the relevant
fixinclude thing right?
>
> The C++ comments issue will be trickier - it looks like we never emit
> warnings for them, just recognize or don't recognize. That's wrong;
> at the very least, C89 mode -pedantic needs to give warnings.
> I need to think about what the appropriate behavior is.
> zw
Since the "foo//*bar*/" case is valid c89, I think _not_ warning is
perhaps the right thing to do.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Internet Solutions