This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: strict_prototypes_lang_c
- To: law at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: strict_prototypes_lang_c
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at Synopsys dot COM>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 98 10:51:16 PST
- Cc: gavin at cygnus dot com, egcs at cygnus dot com
> In message <13942.31893.760353.315840@cetus.cygnus.com>you write:
> > > Personally, I agree.
> >
> > >From this thread it sounded like the primary reason for turning
> > on -trigraphs is to make "what's on by default" be a superset of
> > ANSI/ISO because that would make the options simpler. If I
> > understood this correctly, I think it's a mistake.
> I can't speak for Mark, but for myself, it's merely a standards conformance
> issue. When in doubt I'll err on the side of following a standard instead of
> doing something non-standard.
OK, how about making -trigraph -Wtrigraph the default. That is, by
default recognize but warn about trigraphs. I suspect even RMS would be
happy with that: we know what trigraphs are but "disapprove". -ansi or
-pedantic could turn off -Wtrigraph.