hard typdef - proposal - I know it's not in the standard

[Alec Teal]

On 23/01/13 08:55, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 23 January 2013 06:53, Alec Teal wrote:
>> Why not:
>>
>> make an "optional keyword", "hard", have a meaning if before "typedef", I
>> suggest tokenising "hard" as a normal token (however it is processed now why
>> change it? I am not sure on GCCs exact grammar for c languages) but if AND
>> ONLY if it is before a "typdef" treat it differently, as far as I know a
>> typedef can only occur at the beginning of a statement so this should mean
>> it doesn't break anything.
> Like other specifiers such as const and static, typedef doesn't have
> to come first, i.e. this is legal, if unconventional:
>
> typedef int hard;
> hard typedef Int;
>
> I think Basile's suggestion to implement it as an attribute is a
> better idea, it makes it clearer it's something non-standard and
> compiler-specific, and the grammar already contains attributes in
> declarations.
>
>> Problems:
>>
>> 1)Not all compilers would be happy with this.
>> Fix:
>> I'm sure gcc must define something for the preprocessor that'll exist if and
>> only if GCC is the compiler?
> Nope, Compilers that claim GCC compatibility also define __GNUC__, and
> as has been discussed before on this list, if we added __REALLY_GCC__
> then other compilers would just add that too.
>
I was fearful of using the word attribute for fear of getting it wrong? 
What is "this part" of the compiler called (I'm doing this with 
gcc@gcc.gnu.org cced in for any future mes ;-))?
Are there any decent-sized documents on it? I'd love a good read!

Alec