Re: More consistent set of allowed values of std flag

[Tomasz KamiÅski <tomaszkam at gmail dot com>]

W dniu 02.04.2011 16:17, Jonathan Wakely pisze:
> 2011/4/2 Tomasz KamiÅski:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have same suggestions connected with the set of allowed values for std
> > flag in gcc for C and C++. According to manual, there are 3 categories of
> > accepted values: ISO standard reference number (ex. iso9899:1990), common
> > name (c90) and version with gnu extensions (ex. gnu90) . But for same
> > standards (amendment C90 and C++) there is only one of them supported. So mu
> > suggestion is to extend set of possible values to:
> >
> > c90, iso9899:1990;
> > gnu90
> >
> > *c94* or *c95*,  iso9899:199409;
> > *gnu94* or *gnu95* (optionally)
> gcc/c-family/c-opts.c says "There is no concept of gnu94."
In this case simply omit this value.
> > c99, iso9899:1999
> > gnu99
> >
> > c1x, *iso9899:201x*
> > gnu1x
> >
> > c++98, *iso14882:1998**
> > *gnu++98
> >
> > c++0x,*iso14882:200x*
> C++0x is not an ISO standard yet, so it's not appropriate to add
> iso14882:200x - even when it is a standard it will probably be 2011
> not 200x (you might have noticed we missed that date ;-)
The x is hexadecimal number and now it is B (this is the best 
explanation I have ever found :-) ). Anyway I have been suggested by the 
for C99 aliases present (but deprecated) in gcc-4.4.3: C9x and 
iso9899:199x. Also WG14 (C Standard committee) uses this kind of 
numeration (ex. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1539.pdf).
> The same applies to c1x.
>
> Consistency is sometimes nice, but personally I don't really see any
> benefit to this change.
In my opinion the ability to use consistent set of options for 
specifying language standard is more convenient for a developer (user).