Date:	Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:58:09 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	GCC 2.95.2: Bugs in commandline options for C9X (fwd)
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000406135617.3003X-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

The last part of this seems to be relevant to our discussion about 
`restrict' being a pest.  See also GCC maintainer's reply and my
own message in reply to that.

You can find the entire thread on http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:08:55 -0700
From: Claus Fischer <claus DOT fischer AT intel DOT com>
To: gcc-bugs AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org
Subject: GCC 2.95.2: Bugs in commandline options for C9X


This is for the released version.


(1) The info files specify that there is an option -flang-isoc9x
    which is however not recognized by the compiler.

(2) Using -std=c9x -ansi leads to a problem in creating the
    call arguments for cpp:

       $ gcc -ansi -std=c9x -c file.c -o file.o
       file.c:0: malformed option `-D __STRICT_ANSI__-trigraphs'

(3) The index for info files does not really mention restrict;
    the only place where one finds how to switch it on is
    grepping in the info pages.

(4) It would be very nice if GNU C would create a define for
    providing the `restrict' keyword; presently I'm using

    #if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901
    #elif defined (__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ >= 2 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 91
    #define restrict __restrict__
    #else
    #define restrict
    #endif

    but I'm not altogether confident that this is a good solution.


Regards,

Claus

-- 
claus DOT fischer AT intel DOT com   Intel Corporation SC12-205 ... not speaking
phone   +1-408-765-6808   2200 Mission College Blvd.           for Intel
fax     +1-408-765-9322   Santa Clara, CA 95052-8119

- Raw text -