This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: new fails on gcc 3.4, i686-unknown-openbsd3.1
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Cc: Marc Espie <espie at cvs dot openbsd dot org>, "tech at openbsd dot org" <tech at openbsd dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:32:40 -0800
- Subject: Re: new fails on gcc 3.4, i686-unknown-openbsd3.1
--On Saturday, December 28, 2002 03:42:51 PM -0200 Alexandre Oliva
<aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
On Dec 28, 2002, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> wrote:
#define __END_DECLS };
Note the semicolon after }, that is what is causing it.
Looks like a job for fixheaders... They headers are obviously in
error.
Nevertheless, I think it's a mistake to outright reject programs that
contain such gratuitous semicolons. Given the number of occurrences
of such constructs in testcases and GCC's libraries, it's obvious that
a lot of code out there will be gratuitously (?) broken by this
change.
There's already some code in the new parser to accept this when not
pedantic; we pedwarn when pedantic. It may be that we need additional
compensating code in other places; right now it's only
cp_parser_declaration_seq_opt.
I certainly agree that we should accept stray semicolons unless we're
being pedantic -- but when we are asked to be pedantic, then this is
the sort of thing a pedantic cares about. :-)
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com