Re: preprocessor/9449: UCNs recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)

Re: preprocessor/9449: UCNs recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)

[Richard Earnshaw]

The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/9449; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
To: zack@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
        nobody@gcc.gnu.org, rearnsha@arm.com, sdouglas@arm.com,
        gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Subject: Re: preprocessor/9449: UCNs recognized in identifiers (c++/c99) 
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:09:12 +0000

 The following link may give some useful ideas.
 
 http://www.codesourcery.com/lists?2:mss:1481:danfdfbkjoaahbcmmeam
 
 R.
 
 PS.  Why have you changed the class to Change Request?  Rejects legal is a 
 far more accurate description of this.
 
 

Re: preprocessor/9449: UCNs recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)

[Zack Weinberg]

The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/9449; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, rearnsha@arm.com,  sdouglas@arm.com, 
 gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: preprocessor/9449: UCNs recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:59:14 -0800

 Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
 
 > http://www.codesourcery.com/lists?2:mss:1481:danfdfbkjoaahbcmmeam
 
 Thanks, that's helpful.
 
 > Why have you changed the class to Change Request?  Rejects legal is
 > a far more accurate description of this.
 
 Because it's a case of "sorry, this feature is not implemented" and I
 don't have time to do it anytime soon, nor do I plan to start an
 implementation until there's agreement on the semantics.
 
 zw

Re: preprocessor/9449: UCNs recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)

[zack]

Synopsis: UCNs recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)

Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->zack
Responsible-Changed-By: zack
Responsible-Changed-When: Mon Jan 27 16:51:04 2003
Responsible-Changed-Why:
    I'll take responsibility for this, but since the situation is that this feature has not yet been implemented, and there are still open questions about how to do it, I am deprioritizing it.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9449

preprocessor/9449: UCNs recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)

[rearnsha]

>Number:         9449
>Category:       preprocessor
>Synopsis:       UCNs recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          rejects-legal
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Mon Jan 27 14:56:00 UTC 2003
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Richard Earnshaw
>Release:        unknown-1.0
>Organization:
>Environment:
Any
>Description:
(I've marked this as "preprocessor" since that's used for lexing both C99 and C++, but this is probably more complicated that that...)

The following is legal in both c99 and C++, but is rejected by both:

int x\u0394;

Note that this isn't just an issue of parsing the input.  The correct translation to the target symbol is also required (this my be governed by machine conventions and/or object file  or linker restrictions).
>How-To-Repeat:
compile the example above with -std=c99 (for C) or the C++ compiler.
>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: