This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ - more tests
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> There's way too much bugginess associated with extensions.
Language design is really hard. History has proven that GCC isn't
_that_ good at it. (I can hear the "boo"s already. Sorry.)
> We try to take credit for introducing extensions that are now part of
> C99 -- but some of them are in C99 with rather different syntax, with
> the result that it's now even harder for us. VLAs are a good example;
> our VLAs aren't C99 VLAs.
Working now with other compilers that correctly implement C99 'inline',
people are mystified that it isn't the same as GNU C's definition of
'inline'. VLAs, zero length arrays, and math library extensions have
often turned into similar head-screws once officially standardized
becuase they've crept into the GNU C/libc vernacular without clear
markings that they are extensions to the pertinent specs. Free software
folks that like to complain about evil vendor extensions to standards
then run off and define their own mystify me.
At the very least, please consider naming the reserved tokens "gnuc_try"
or "_try" or something to make people realize that it isn't part of the
official language/library that is portable C.
RJL