This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: the actual c9x patch
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: the actual c9x patch
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 12:21:25 -0700
- cc: Zack Weinberg <zack at rabi dot columbia dot edu>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at cygnus dot com>, egcs-patches at cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <19981202110416.A11229@dot.cygnus.com>you write:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 01:16:41AM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > > It is perfectly reasonable to want to compile code to C89 plus gcc's
> > > language extensions: suppose you've used `attribute' unqualified, but
> > > need to avoid the C9x syntax changes. You can't ask for that right n
> ow.
> > Agreed. Or to compile to C9X + GNU extensions or future standards + GNU
> > extensions.
>
> I don't agree that this is resonable, given that there _are_ no
> non-backward compatible syntax changes. I think that arranging
> for c89+gnu is being needlessly complex. Either you enforce a
> standard or you don't.
Huh? There's new keywords in c9x. That's not backwards compatible.
jeff