This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: strict_prototypes_lang_c
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at Synopsys dot COM>
- Subject: Re: strict_prototypes_lang_c
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at hurl dot cygnus dot com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:50:42 -0700
- cc: gavin at cygnus dot com, egcs at cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <199812151851.KAA26033@yamato.synopsys.com>you write:
>
> > 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 conforman
> ce
> > issue. When in doubt I'll err on the side of following a standard instea
> d 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.
That would be fine by me too.
jeff