From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10884 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2012 18:57:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 10871 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2012 18:57:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:56:49 +0000 From: "josh at joshtriplett dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/51437] GCC should warn on the use of reserved identifier/macro names Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:58:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: josh at joshtriplett dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg01909.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D51437 --- Comment #13 from Josh Triplett 2012-02-1= 9 18:56:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > (In reply to comment #9) > > > (Some of the other reserved identifier categories, such as E[A-Z0-9].= *, > > > is[a-z].*, to[a-z].*, and mem[a-z].* should go under some separate, m= ore > > > pedantic warning option.) > >=20 > > I don't see why this should happen at all. There's nothing special abou= t these > > general names? >=20 > See comment #3, they are reserved in C99 =C2=A77.26 "Future library direc= tions" > (although those patterns aren't quite right). I wrote those patterns based on C11 section 7.30 "Future library directions= ".=20 7.30.3 says "Macros that begin with E and a digit or E and an uppercase let= ter may be added to the declarations in the header.". 7.30.2 says "Function names that begin with either is or to, and a lowercase letter may= be added to the declarations in the header."; 7.30.12 also reserves those two for . 7.30.11 says "Function names that begin with str, mem, or wcs and a lowercase letter may be added to the declarations in the header." AFAICT, those reservations match the regexes I gave.