This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] PR 53063 encode group options in .opt files

On 2012/5/18 03:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Chung-Lin Tang
> <> wrote:
>> The point here is that, a group of changes that broke C bootstrap went
>> in undetected for several days, because of the partially C++ default. To
>> prevent that in the future, we should enforce similar checking in both C
>> and C++.
> As opposed to enforcing checking that makes sense in a C++ setting?

I think that, with the current status quo, it would be best to maintain
things valid in both languages.

But really, can you give more specific examples of "functions
used in certain contexts [required to] have external linkage"? Because I
don't think that in general, allowing global functions without
declarations in headers is recommended C++ style either :)

Maybe what should be fixed is for -Wmissing-declarations to determine
between your mentioned cases of external linkage, and the "usual" case
(if it's not already capable of that).


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]