Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:17:53 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: xmalloc and xfree
In-Reply-To:	<B0000104719@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.991011161301.29606A-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> > Perhaps we should uncomment the prototype of xmalloc and friends in 
> > stdlib.h, but only #ifdef __cplusplus.
> > 
> > Comments?
> 
> Should we have them there at all. 

That's the case now: the prototypes are commented-out, so they are 
effectively ``not there''.  The user who had this problem compiled a 
program that called xmalloc and got compilation errors.  I was asking 
maybe we should enable the prototypes for C++ only.  If we do, at least 
people who use xmalloc will have their C++ programs compiled.  With the 
current setup, they cannot compile them at all.

> > Btw, isn't that -ansi-pedantic default of C++ a good reason to complain 
> > about to the GCC maintainers?  As far as I understand, that means, in 
> > particular, that C++ programs will not see prototypes of non-ANSI 
> > functions in our C headers, right?  I guess there are other calamities 
> > as well.
> 
> Not true. Corresponding defines are not added when preprocessing
> C++ sources. So preprocessor knows nothing about this C++ compiler
> feature.

Do I understand correctly that -ansi does not define __STRICT_ANSI__ in 
the C++ compiler?

> Also one always can use command line option -fpermissive to push 
> through source which violates C++ standard.

I don't think this is a good solution.  A ``normal'' compilation should 
not require any non-default switches, unless we think *every* 
compilation should use it.

- Raw text -