This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Committed: Fix for C99 thinko in c++/3394 fix (but still present on branch)
- From: Robert Lipe <robertlipe at usa dot net>
- To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- Cc: mark at codesourcery dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rodrigc at mediaone dot net, khan at nanotech dot wisc dot edu, gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:35:21 -0600
- Subject: Re: Committed: Fix for C99 thinko in c++/3394 fix (but still present on branch)
- References: <Pine.BSF.email@example.com>
> You must not use C99 constructs in gcc (presumably for at least the
> next 10 years ;-) not even in non-C front-ends. There
Since we allow GCC-specific extensions in non-C front ends and we
document that the only supported way to build the non-C front ends is
with 'make bootstrap', what's the distinction here?
> should be some option used to prevent this at build time, so
> you'd see a build error in a native bootstrap too. I see the
IMO, the first few lines of every front end need to be a test to see if
the compiler being used is a GCC that's deemed "recent enough" and issue
a hard failure if not. That the code builds at all with a "make" and
an arbitrary compiler has proven to be little more than an attractive
nuiscance over recent years.