Push GENERIC farther into C/C++ front ends.

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:47:11PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
> 
> > Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> > 
> > >> struct real_value has a field named `class'.  That's easily fixed, but
> > >> given the above I'm wondering whether it will be acceptable...?
> > >
> > > If I recall correctly, my concern was that it might be hard to
> > > maintain the invariant that the code compile as C++.  Therefore, I
> > > think that what I'd want is to make it a goal that stuff compile as
> > > C++, but not try to make people check that when making changes.
> > 
> > #pragma poison could be used to enforce no C++ keywords, at least.
> 
> I like that idea.
> 
> It might be useful in the long run to have a new warning flag (for the
> C compiler, probably) to warn about constructs that aren't in the common
> subset of C and C++.  I am sure there are people who would use it.

I completely agree.  Or even well publicised documentation about what
that subset is - does anyone know of one?  I'm not enough of an expert
in either language to guess.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz