public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: craig@jcb-sc.com
To: jbuck@Synopsys.COM
Cc: craig@jcb-sc.com
Subject: Re: i18n of egcs
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 08:00:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <19990429144010.7034.qmail@deer> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <199904290654.XAA11746@atrus.synopsys.com>

>> Well, we can have a -iso option that defaults to the current standard
>> which can be overriden by -std= option. No? 
>
>Certainly.  Let -iso mean "the ISO standard currently in effect for
>the language in use", same for -ansi/ANSI standard.  For C and C++,
>the two are the same.

And remember, we were discussing having `-iso' have the same *effect*
as `-ansi'.

So, the purpose of `-iso' would be basically the same as `-ansi', and, as
Joe rightly explains, for C/C++, it would be *exactly* the same, since
the prevailing ISO and ANSI standards are identical.

At least, it is my feeling that the purpose of `-ansi' and `-iso' are to
tell the compiler that the language is "strict" ANSI/ISO *whatever*,
depending on what is being compiled.  Specifying *whatever* is done
via the filename suffix, `-x', and `-std'.  And `-pedantic' turns on
even stricter checking than is necessary to compile ANSI/ISO-conforming
code, as explained in the gcc docs for `-ansi'.

What's unclear is how gcc is supposed to handle `-std=iso-something -ansi'.
My suggestion is, anytime the ISO standard explicitly prevails (either
via command-line option or via input language), `-ansi' has no effect
*for that source file*, but might still affect others.

(Unfortunately, I can't find `-std=' documented in egcs/gcc/invoke.texi,
so I don't know whether it's intended to just specify the standard for
files determined, by other means, to be of the pertinent language, or
to have the effect of specifying that language, like `-x'.)

        tq vm, (burley)

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: craig@jcb-sc.com
To: jbuck@Synopsys.COM
Cc: craig@jcb-sc.com
Subject: Re: i18n of egcs
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:15:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <19990429144010.7034.qmail@deer> (raw)
Message-ID: <19990430231500.FHn-_0pilEHxOvwYG_K-Cuejn2P_H6RkkqEHkcDQ0Sw@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <199904290654.XAA11746@atrus.synopsys.com>

>> Well, we can have a -iso option that defaults to the current standard
>> which can be overriden by -std= option. No? 
>
>Certainly.  Let -iso mean "the ISO standard currently in effect for
>the language in use", same for -ansi/ANSI standard.  For C and C++,
>the two are the same.

And remember, we were discussing having `-iso' have the same *effect*
as `-ansi'.

So, the purpose of `-iso' would be basically the same as `-ansi', and, as
Joe rightly explains, for C/C++, it would be *exactly* the same, since
the prevailing ISO and ANSI standards are identical.

At least, it is my feeling that the purpose of `-ansi' and `-iso' are to
tell the compiler that the language is "strict" ANSI/ISO *whatever*,
depending on what is being compiled.  Specifying *whatever* is done
via the filename suffix, `-x', and `-std'.  And `-pedantic' turns on
even stricter checking than is necessary to compile ANSI/ISO-conforming
code, as explained in the gcc docs for `-ansi'.

What's unclear is how gcc is supposed to handle `-std=iso-something -ansi'.
My suggestion is, anytime the ISO standard explicitly prevails (either
via command-line option or via input language), `-ansi' has no effect
*for that source file*, but might still affect others.

(Unfortunately, I can't find `-std=' documented in egcs/gcc/invoke.texi,
so I don't know whether it's intended to just specify the standard for
files determined, by other means, to be of the pertinent language, or
to have the effect of specifying that language, like `-x'.)

        tq vm, (burley)

  reply	other threads:[~1999-04-29  8:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1999-04-27 11:43 Philipp Thomas
1999-04-27 13:06 ` Gabriel Dos_Reis
1999-04-27 13:33   ` Philipp Thomas
1999-04-28  0:46     ` Steinar Bang
1999-04-28  5:37       ` Gabriel Dos_Reis
1999-04-30 23:15         ` Gabriel Dos_Reis
1999-04-28  6:05       ` craig
1999-04-28  6:47         ` alex.buell
1999-04-28  6:53           ` craig
1999-04-28  7:17             ` alex.buell
1999-04-28 15:41               ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-04-28 15:46                 ` Zack Weinberg
1999-04-28 23:16                   ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-04-28 23:25                     ` Gabriel Dos_Reis
1999-04-28 23:55                       ` Joe Buck
1999-04-29  8:00                         ` craig [this message]
1999-04-29  8:17                           ` Joern Rennecke
1999-04-30 12:40                             ` Philipp Thomas
1999-04-30 23:15                               ` Philipp Thomas
1999-05-05  1:43                               ` Steinar Bang
1999-05-31 21:36                                 ` Steinar Bang
1999-04-30 23:15                             ` Joern Rennecke
1999-04-30 23:15                           ` craig
1999-04-30 23:15                         ` Joe Buck
1999-04-30 23:15                       ` Gabriel Dos_Reis
1999-04-29 13:19                     ` Richard Henderson
1999-04-30 23:15                       ` Richard Henderson
1999-04-30 23:15                     ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-04-30 23:15                   ` Zack Weinberg
1999-04-30 23:15                 ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-04-30 23:15               ` alex.buell
1999-04-30 23:15             ` craig
1999-04-30 23:15           ` alex.buell
1999-04-28  6:54         ` Gabriel Dos_Reis
1999-04-30 23:15           ` Gabriel Dos_Reis
1999-04-30 23:15         ` craig
1999-04-30 23:15       ` Steinar Bang
1999-04-30 23:15     ` Philipp Thomas
1999-04-27 22:24   ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-04-30 23:15     ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-04-30 23:15   ` Gabriel Dos_Reis
1999-04-30  0:27 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-04-30  2:22   ` Andreas Schwab
1999-04-30 23:15     ` Andreas Schwab
1999-04-30 15:06   ` Philipp Thomas
1999-04-30 23:15     ` Philipp Thomas
1999-05-04  0:33     ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-05-31 21:36       ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-07-09  2:56     ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-07-31 23:33       ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-04-30 23:15   ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-04-30 23:15 ` Philipp Thomas
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1999-04-28  9:17 Mike Stump
1999-04-30 23:15 ` Mike Stump
1999-04-05 17:27 Mike Stump
1999-04-30 23:15 ` Mike Stump
1999-03-25  3:43 Philipp Thomas
1999-03-31 23:46 ` Philipp Thomas
1999-04-03 21:29 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-04-04 18:00   ` Philipp Thomas
1999-04-30 23:15     ` Philipp Thomas
1999-04-30 23:15   ` Jeffrey A Law

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=19990429144010.7034.qmail@deer \
    --to=craig@jcb-sc.com \
    --cc=jbuck@Synopsys.COM \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).