This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch] Support DEC-C extensions
- From: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>
- To: Joseph S. Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:16:11 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Support DEC-C extensions
- References: <51227D85-9E15-48AB-9381-14B597C1F80B@adacore.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1109301442480.15173@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <07CC04EB-8EFF-4875-BA8B-D630026AE744@adacore.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1109301519100.15173@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a patch.
>>
>> I don't think it must be restricted to system headers, as it is possible
>> that the user 'imports' such a function (and define it in one of VMS
>> favorite languages such as macro-32 or bliss).
>
> If it's not restricted to system headers, then probably the option is
> better than the target hook.
Is it ok with this option name (-fdecc-extensions) or do you prefer a more generic option name,
such as -fallow-unnamed-variadic-functions ?
Tristan.