This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: -std's (was Re: v3 link failures analyzed)
- To: gdr at codesourcery dot com, jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk
- Subject: Re: -std's (was Re: v3 link failures analyzed)
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:32:19 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> To: "Joseph S. Myers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> From: Gabriel Dos Reis <email@example.com>
> Date: 10 Jan 2001 20:00:25 +0100
> "Joseph S. Myers" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> | On 10 Jan 2001, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > Thanks. Now I understand the motivation. But I still think that
> | > there should be an alias for the most recent standard in effect
> | > (and understood by the compiler).
> | Under what circumstances would such an option be useful?
> When you just want to compile a program with the most recent
> standard without having to keep that of xxx:yyyy. We shouldn't get
> more pendatic than necessary. It is a practical matter.
What is wrong with having -std be that option?