This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C99 usage in gcc
- From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
- To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>,Bruce Stephens <bruce at cenderis dot demon dot co dot uk>,GCC List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:14:27 +0000
- Subject: Re: C99 usage in gcc
- References: <877jzal3rz.fsf@wasabisystems.com> <C02436AE-52C3-11D8-9D26-000393A6D2F2@physics.uc.edu> <16410.14766.949435.377839@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401301433440.3429@wotan.suse.de> <87wu79zcos.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk> <873c9wt23o.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20040202153402.C7898@synopsys.com> <87brohcap1.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
Zack Weinberg wrote:-
> That is true, however, there are other constructs that *will* be
> misinterpreted: for example,
>
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> // can't happen
> #endif
>
> It is too hard to tell the difference at the point where the warning
> issues.
In 3.4 we permit the unmatched ' because of many complaints, so
perhaps we should conditionalize the // warnings on !skipping.
I'd be OK with that.
Neil.