From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7666 invoked by alias); 19 May 2003 06:49:44 -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 7597 invoked from network); 19 May 2003 06:49:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 May 2003 06:49:42 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h4J6nBeR013278; Mon, 19 May 2003 08:49:12 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h4J6nBs0013277; Mon, 19 May 2003 08:49:11 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: Neil Booth Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Warning for trigraphs in comment? References: <20030518193113.GC13596@daikokuya.co.uk> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <20030518193113.GC13596@daikokuya.co.uk> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 06:51:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01733.txt.bz2 Neil Booth writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:- | | > is extracted from Herb's GTW #86 -- full message appended below. | > I would suggest we warn for trigraphs in comments. | | I changed this particular case a few weeks ago. Thanks! Since the discussion was about compilers released for production used, I just content myself with checking 3.2.3 and 3.3 and found that the comment and the behaviour were indeed there. | In general I think warning about trigraphs in comments is a bad idea. I see you stated a personal opinion but I think we need to weight that against the fact that we got real world experience and the fact that the comment is not accurate. | This particular | case I was of course always aware of, but considered it obscure. | 3.4 documentation and behaviour is already good enough for you I | think. It is not particularly me. I was reporting input from discussions which at first sight looked to me as just an academic exercise and it turned out that it happened in reality. | The patch is not appropriate for 3.3. | | The real fix is to remove trigraphs from the standard. Oh, I'm all for removing trigraphs, digraphs, quadrigraphs and whatevergraphs -- I've also thought they were mistakes. But, in fact, I'm skeptical that would ever happen. Anyway, I'm glad to hear that 3.4 will behave differently. -- Gaby