[Patch] Support DEC-C extensions

Gabriel Dos Reis gdr@integrable-solutions.net
Mon Oct 3 15:35:00 GMT 2011

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>> If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that.  I will write such a patch.
>>> I don't think it must be restricted to system headers, as it is possible
>>> that the user 'imports' such a function (and define it in one of VMS
>>> favorite languages such as macro-32 or bliss).
>> If it's not restricted to system headers, then probably the option is
>> better than the target hook.
> Is it ok with this option name (-fdecc-extensions) or do you prefer a more generic option name,
> such as -fallow-unnamed-variadic-functions ?

As observed earlier, there is nothing DEC-C specific about this, so
-fdecc-extensions isnt

"unnamed variadic functions" sounds as if the function itself is
unnamed, so not good.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list