From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Martin von Loewis <martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
To: mark@markmitchell.com
Cc: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: strict_prototypes_lang_c
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:04:00 -0000
Message-id: <199812150001.BAA00364@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
References: <199812140113.RAA07556@adsl-206-170-148-33.dsl.pacbell.net>
X-SW-Source: 1998-12/msg00489.html

> I think that our default mode should be a *superset* of ANSI/ISO C++
> programs, i.e., ANSI/ISO with some appropriate extensions.  Using
> -pedantic should restrict this mode by removing the extensions.  Thus,
> -fstrict-prototypes should be the default, as per standard C++.  You
> should have to use -fno-strict-prototypes to make `extern "C"' things
> treat `()' as `(...)', IMO.
> 
> If we really need to have the default mode be something other than a
> superset of ANSI/ISO C++, then -ansi is the flag that should be used
> to get ANSI/ISO C++ (and maybe some extensions), not -pedantic.

I totally agree on the -ansi/-pedantic issue; it should be -ansi that
activates -fstrict-prototypes, not -pedantic.

I mostly agree on the default value: In C++, () always means (void),
and should not mean (...). I have no idea how many C++ programs still
link with K&R headers; so I'm not sure whether we really should change
the default.

Regards,
Martin