Re: ISO C++ and C99 features

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>]

Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com> writes:

| Hi,
| [This stuff about long long, -ansi etc]

[...]

| ... And, as a user, I'd be very
| surprised/annoyed if the next rev of C++ did not include most of C99.
| I also like portable programs (so those features are autoconf'd), and
| I like to be told when I'm straying from the standard (rather than
| randomly wander into extension land).
| 
| Now, as a picky compiler head, I like sticking to the standard.

[...]

| We have a more permissive compiler with -fpermissive (which is the
| right way to do it - reject by default so you know there's a problem).
| 
| Standards are set, in part, from existing practice -- so we'd better
| create some! I'd like a more futuristic compiler with -fprescient
| or -fxtal-ball. I suppose we could say all gnu extensions are our
| proposal for the next standard, in which case I'm out of luck.

I wholefully agree with you. I think it is one thing to implement
useful extensions (and support their use); it is another to present
them as part of the current Standard. 

We used to document `-ansi -pedantic' as GCC's picky mode, it would be
really annoying if, suddendly, we change its meaning and start
confusing our smart extensions with the Standards. 

-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC                             http://www.codesourcery.com