This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: Deprecate C++ options
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: RFA: Deprecate C++ options
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:06:00 -0700
> I'd be much more likely to be in favor of converting gcc sources
> itself to C89. I.e. do away with PARAMS, remove (int)enum, assume
> stdargs, etc. In that case, one can use gcc 2.x to build gcc 3.x, and
> then you're happy.
May I live to see the day.
> Moreover, there are fixincludes hacks needed even for supposedly
> compliant system headers, so I don't think we'll ever be able to get
> rid of that. At which point I don't think we're gaining much in the
> way of maintenance improvement.
Right. This is tilting at windmills: some kind of fixincludes is going
to be necessary regardless of C89/C99 conformance. (Note we need
fixincludes anyway, because some vendor headers have incorrect with
respect to C99 bits.)
> > -fno-for-scope
> > -fcheck-new
> > -fno-operator-names
I vote for these to go as well. My general position, I reiterate, is
for a standards-conformant compiler by default. I think kidding
ourselves that flags to change the C++ ABI are necessary or even
useful is a delusional mistake.
-benjamin