Re: strict_prototypes_lang_c

[Martin von Loewis <martin at mira dot isdn dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>]

> I'm not opposed to turning on -trigraphs by default.  Like Jeff
> said, if the consensus is to have them on, then by all means.  But
> in the mean time, lets use trigraphs as an example to help us
> improve and/or clarify our option flags.

From the point of existing options, it seems clear that we either need
more options, or enable trigraphs by default. We have

-pedantic: If we accept it, and ISO doesn't, reject it

-ansi: If ISO accepts it, and we do, and there is a difference in
       semantics, favour ISO semantics

What we currently don't have is

-xyz: If we don't accept it by default, but ISO would, accept it.

Except for trigraphs, I can hardly imagine what feature we would
implement, but refuse to offer by default.

Of course, there is a number of cases were the ISO behaviour is
stupid, and we do something else instead by default (e.g. destructor
ordering). This is what -ansi is for, and this is what makes gcc not
to be a superset by default.

I can hardly see why strict subsetting in some area should be the
default.

Regards,
Martin