From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6745 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2004 14:23:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6079 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2004 14:23:23 -0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20041216142323.6078.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030127145600.9449.rearnsha@arm.com> References: <20030127145600.9449.rearnsha@arm.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug preprocessor/9449] UCNs not recognized in identifiers (c++/c99) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg02370.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-16 14:23 ------- Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers (c++/c99) On examination of the different lists in C and C++, I'd add the use of UCNs accepted in one language only to the cases that should receive a default warning (identifiers not in NFKC receiving such a warning as well). Most extreme, but assuring any case which might have a compatibility problem is warned for, would be also to warn for any character with a canonical or compatibility decomposition and for any character with nonzero combining class. This area is just one of many where C and C++ give programmers more than enough rope to hang themselves. In general we give due warning in such cases then let the programmers go ahead if they really want to. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9449