Date:	Mon, 14 May 2001 18:21:33 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [PATCH] Update to compiler options for DJGPP CVS version
In-Reply-To:	<200105141448.KAA01828@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010514181909.27510K-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 14 May 2001, DJ Delorie wrote:

> > How so?  Are you saying that a constant such as 1e-2048 is automatically 
> > and silently converted by GCC to a long double type?  Even if this is 
> > true for a particular version of GCC, is it safe to take it as granted?
> 
> I don't know; do we remember if we had a problem back when we added
> those constants?

I wouldn't know: that was in the v1.x days, I believe.

> > > > mntent.c:864:2: warning: suggest not using #elif in traditional C
> > > 
> > > So take it out and use nested #if's
> > 
> > Which is much less readable.
> 
> How so?  Personally, I'd rather have the cpp macros easily identified
> so they aren't confused with C constructs.  (is that an if, or a #if?)

A matter of taste, I guess.

> > In sum, it certainly looks like -Wtraditional whines about issues which 
> > make the code more readable and safer.  Are the potential bugs it can 
> > uncover really so bad that it makes sense to live with the downsides?
> 
> If "living with the downsides" is limited to the kinds of things we've
> uncovered, it's no big deal to live with them.

From the original report of Andris, I remember more nuisance like the `u' 
qualifier.  We cannot avoid using those qualifiers altogether.

- Raw text -