Greg Hudson wrote:
>On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 04:12, Kevin Pilch-Bisson wrote:
>>I disagree! This option gives useful information sometimes. Just because it
>>can't work on _some_ platforms is no reason to disable it on _all_ of them.
>I say we punt the option entirely. It can provide some useful
>information, but so can lint and valgrind, and we don't angst about how
>we aren't always running our code through lint and under valgrind.
I don't agree. Letting the compiler do your bug hunting for you is
always a good idea.
>playing with compiler options like this is always a recipe for pain. We
>know it works on "Linux," and it's probably even true that it works on
>all Linux distributions today, but who's to say the next version of
>glibc won't contain a bug in this area?
The chance that any released version of glibc would not work with a
released GCC is remote.
> Who's to say it won't change
>philosophy and start demanding that programs complied with -std=c89
>actually be C89 programs?
GCC's rules in this area are quite well-established. You have to say
-pedantic together with -std=... in order to disable all language
> (A C89 program only uses C89 headers and only
>calls C89 functions,
Nonsense! That would mean that a conforming program can't use libraries
not mentioned in the standard. It can, of course.
> so it can't do much of use besides text
>I learned that if you want to avoid needless conflict, you should try to
>do things the same way as everyone else does, unless you have a very
>good reason not to. It's inconceivable that Red Hat will ever come out
>with a release with a compiler which fails to build "Hello, world," but
>it's quite possible that their compiler will fail to build it if you
>pass some unusual flag.
Are you saying that -std=... is an unusual flag?
Brane Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Thu Jun 19 04:58:24 2003