Re: problems with iso restrict

[Andi Kleen <ak at muc dot de>]

In muc.lists.egcs.misc, you wrote:
>This gives folks a chance to transition their code to be c9x complaint.  Of
>course to do that they need info on c9x's features (web page anyone?) and
>info on how closely we follow the standard.  I want this information regardless
>of when we decide to make c9x the default so that I can put it in the egcs news
>section on the web page.

Important C9x features still missing in egcs:

- Free statement/declaration mixing inside blocks (my favourite) and support
for having a declaration in for 
[for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { /* i in scope */ }]. The hard part in
implementing it is to make sure that the bison parser will still give
sensible errors for common situations. 
I think that feature should be definitely in before egcs is announcing C9x
support.

Transitions needed:

- Moving from gcc style complex support to C9x complex support. Lots of work.
Is there a relevant user base of the old gcc-style complex support?
- Changing the gcc 'inline' keyword semantics to c9x semantics (inline in C9x
implies static). This will hurt.

Very nice to have would be:
- Support for #pragma FP_CONTRACT

-Andi