From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32236 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2010 17:00:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 32184 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Feb 2010 17:00:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:00:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1AH0QFT030551 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:00:26 -0500 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1AH0O8h032063; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:00:25 -0500 Message-ID: <4B72E628.4000904@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:26:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Dr. David Kirkby" CC: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Why is gcc going to default to "GNU dialect of ISO C99?" References: <4B72E287.2010207@onetel.net> In-Reply-To: <4B72E287.2010207@onetel.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-02/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 On 02/10/2010 04:44 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > According to > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Dialect-Options.html#C-Dialect-Options > > -std=foobar > > > `gnu9x' > GNU dialect of ISO C99. When ISO C99 is fully implemented in GCC, > this will become the default. The name `gnu9x' is deprecated. > > I really can not understand the logic of this. Why not default to ISO > C99 and let people enable GNUisms if they wish to? Then code should be > more portable across different compilers. With the GNUisms allowed by > default, it will make porting code more difficult to other stricter > compilers. This reasoning would make perfect sense if the primary goal of gcc's users was to write code to be ported to other compilers. However, many of GNU C's extensions are very useful, so it makes sense to have them available by default. (Having said that, many of GNU C's extensions are part of C99 anyway, so the difference is smaller than with C89.) Andrew.