From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joe Buck <jbuck@racerx.synopsys.com>
To: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds)
Cc: per@bothner.com (Per Bothner), gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Trigraph warnings when compiling linux-2.4.0-prerelease1
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 12:40:00 -0000
Message-id: <200101022038.MAA10564@racerx.synopsys.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101021153580.25166-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00081.html

Per Bothner wrote:
> > I read "assuming they are enabled" is a very poor way of saying "warn about
> > constructs that would be read as trigraphs if trigraphs were enabled."

Linus wrote:
> I would have to agree that that would be more logical, even if I don't
> think that is what the docs actually _say_ right now ;)

Thanks for alerting us to this documentation bug.  I had also read the
language the way Per reads it, and not the way you read it, but I agree
that it is confusing and the fact that it can be read two ways means it's
bad documentation.  If the compiler worked the way you are interpreting
the documentation, the warning would be less useful, and the intent of
-Wtrigraphs is to warn about trigraphs.

Trigraphs are handled during preprocessing, and we have a new
preprocessor, so some differences are going to show up.  I will object
to changes that have a negative impact on users (e.g. the Emacs users
and #cpu), but this is not such a case IMHO.