From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2549 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2009 21:12:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 2531 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Oct 2009 21:12:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:11:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9CLBrTe021268 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:11:54 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9CLBr3o028493; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:11:53 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9CLBqh2003162; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:11:52 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id C332C37828F; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:11:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Patch ping References: <20091012122237.GJ14664@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <20091012202034.GP14664@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:29:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20091012202034.GP14664@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> (Jakub Jelinek's message of "Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:20:34 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00798.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jakub" == Jakub Jelinek writes: Tom> I didn't see anything limiting this to C++0x, but I suppose that will be Tom> done outside libcpp. Tom> The patch refers to `CPP_OPTION (pfile, uliterals)' but I didn't see an Tom> addition to struct cpp_options. Jakub> Both of the above questions are related. It is uliterals that Jakub> limits this to C++0x and GNUC99, and that wasn't added because it Jakub> is already pre-existing. Oops, I didn't think to look there :) If you need to add a new option here, that is fine by me. IIUC, this part is really just about satisfying the differing needs of the C and C++ FEs. Tom