[Patch] Support DEC-C extensions

Basile Starynkevitch basile@starynkevitch.net
Mon Oct 3 13:37:00 GMT 2011


On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 03:16:11PM +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> 
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> 
> Is it ok with this option name (-fdecc-extensions) or do you prefer a more generic option name,
> such as -fallow-unnamed-variadic-functions ?


My preference is to avoid using the -fdecc-extensions and use a more explanative & generic option name.

But my (non-native English speaker) understanding of
-fallow-unnamed-variadic-functions is misleading: I read it to allow
anonymous functions (think of lambda) which happends to be variadic, which
is not what your patch gives.

What about -fallow-fully-variadic-functions or
-fallow-very-variadic-functions ?


And we could also imagine having a GCC #pragma which change the acceptance
of variadic functions.

By the way, I also regret the name of -fms-extensions option;
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.1/gcc/Unnamed-Fields.html#Unnamed-Fields
because accepting an unamed field should not be percieved as MicroSoft
specific, but as a unseful language extension.

[My point is that language extensions should not be enabled by options
containing a brand or a trademark which suggested them, they should be named
by options which are evocative of what the extension provides.]

Regards.
-- 
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list