From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>
To: mark@markmitchell.com
Cc: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: strict_prototypes_lang_c 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:51:00 -0000
Message-id: <22448.913704596@hurl.cygnus.com>
References: <199812140113.RAA07556@adsl-206-170-148-33.dsl.pacbell.net>
X-SW-Source: 1998-12/msg00495.html

  In message < 199812140113.RAA07556@adsl-206-170-148-33.dsl.pacbell.net >you wri
te:
  > This is bogus in several ways.  For one thing, -pedantic should
  > *never, ever* change the meaning of a program.  It should only 
  > cause illegal programs to be rejected:
Agreed.


  > 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.
Does C++ have trigraphs?  Those are disabled, unless the -trigraphs option
is used.  As long as those are disabled by default, then we do not have
a strict superset of ANSI/ISO.


jeff