From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20791 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2003 22:17:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20782 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 22:17:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx03.uni-tuebingen.de) (134.2.3.13) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 22:17:54 -0000 Received: from juist (semeai.Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.De [134.2.15.66]) by mx03.uni-tuebingen.de (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2PMHjsg011534; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:17:46 +0100 Received: from falk by juist with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18xwjo-00047X-00; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:17:44 +0100 To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Raja R Harinath , "Kaveh R. Ghazi" , mark@codesourcery.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdr@integrable-solutions.net Subject: Re: Converting to ISO C89 References: <200303250642.h2P6gZ4r025932@doubledemon.codesourcery.com> <1048612019.25895.7.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com> <200303251752.MAA08671@caip.rutgers.edu> <873clbi0p6.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <87fzpb6s1u.fsf@student.uni-tuebingen.de> <87smtbgl65.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> From: Falk Hueffner Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87smtbgl65.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> Message-ID: <87brzz6qgn.fsf@student.uni-tuebingen.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.5 (cabbage) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter 1.0.0.8; AVE 6.18.0.3; VDF 6.18.0.19 X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01581.txt.bz2 Zack Weinberg writes: > Falk Hueffner writes: > > > Zack Weinberg writes: > > > >> Raja R Harinath writes: > >> > Hopefully the ISO C89 changes also make the source C++-safe. > >> > >> It will not. There is extensive use of identifiers which are C++ > >> keywords, such as 'class' and 'delete'. I do not think your > >> suggestion is useful enough to warrant changing all of these > >> identifiers. > > > > Couldn't that be easily worked around with -Dclass=__class or > > something? > > Is this not a cure worse than the disease? *shrug* I don't feel very strongly about this. It would be nice to bootstrap gcc with g++ IMHO, because it might uncover bugs like bootstraping gcc currently does. And identifers named after keywords just don't seem like a major obstacle there. I'd expect other stuff, like void* casts and enum conversions. -- Falk