From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28962 invoked by alias); 4 May 2003 10:26:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28948 invoked by uid 71); 4 May 2003 10:26:00 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 10:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030504102600.28947.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Hallvard B Furuseth Subject: Re: preprocessor/10614: -Wtrigraphs does not catch // ??/ Reply-To: Hallvard B Furuseth X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00230.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/10614; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Hallvard B Furuseth To: Neil Booth Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, Zack Weinberg , gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: preprocessor/10614: -Wtrigraphs does not catch // ??/ Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:24:20 +0200 Neil Booth writes: > You could persuade me that it's worthwhile warning for ??/ followed by > a newline in any kind of comment with -Wtrigraphs. Sounds good. As I said in report preprocessor/10613, I think it's important to warn about _silent_ changes from ISO C. I suggest you also warn about ??/ , since gcc ignores these spaces/tabs (with a warning). > it would warn about ??/ followed by a newline in C block comments that > don't change behaviour, but I don't think that would bother those who > want trigraph warnings off in comments. Right. If it bothers anyone, you could add a comment in the -Wtrigraphs doc that ??/ in comments is warned about because it _may_ change the meaning of the program, and leave it at that. > Is that an acceptable compromise? Yes, fine. -- Hallvard