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: Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com
- Subject: Re: Still a lot of C++ files getting "fixed"
- From: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:23:01 +0100
- CC: ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu, zack at wolery dot cumb dot org, austern at sgi dot com, autogen at linuxbox dot com, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com
- References: <200001262138.QAA12458@caip.rutgers.edu> <00012623085400.07257@enzo.bigblue.local>
> Aren't there international treatys between ISO and the local
> standard organizations like ANSI, stating that ISO standards are
> automatically local standards too? So if ISO defines C99 it's also
> an ANSI standard? For me that would mean -ansi now should check for
> ISO C99 compliance and if a user wants to check for the old and now
> outdated ANSI C89 he has to use a different flag like -ansi=c89. So
> -ansi or -iso would always mean the latest official standard.
I agree that this is a valid view of things. However, we may find out
that quite some code breaks under C99. Looking through the features
list, 'removed implicit int' is probably a common source of problems,
especially since the Solaris X11 header files are not C99 compliant
(that is also the only thing that might cause problems, AFAICT).
Of course, as a compiler vendor, we could take a "you deserve it"
attitude, explaining to even more people that their OS vendor does not
ship header files conforming to the current international standards.
Regards,
Martin