Date:	Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:13:15 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	ahelm AT gmx DOT net
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: GCC 2.95.3 and C standard(s) + commandline switch problems
In-Reply-To:	<4830.986817066@www1.gmx.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010409150902.4444A-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 ahelm AT gmx DOT net wrote:

> Compling this for the different standards with GCC 2.95.3 
> doesn't show any differences.
> 
> 
> GCC 2.95.3 also seems to have problems with the commandline switches:
> 
> The -fstd= switches don't seem to work:
> 
> (part of the screen output using -v)
> cc1.exe: Invalid option `-fstd=c89'
> GNU C version 2.95.3 20010315/djgpp (release) (djgpp) compiled by GNU C
> version
> 2.95.3 20010315/djgpp (release).
> 
> The gcc info pages are somewhat confusing here but -std= seems to be
> accepted. Although you can write anything behind the = sign without
> warning (and without any noticable change in behaviour. E.g.: -std=c123
> I've tried all the dialects like -std=c89 -std=c9x (also the long forms).

Does the GCC docs says anywhere that version 2.95.3 supports C9x?  AFAIK, 
it doesn't.  If I'm right, you will have to wait until GCC v3.0 is 
released (or some later version, if 3.0 won't support C9x).

As for the documented options, I suggest to post your report to the GCC 
bug-reporting address ("gcc --help" should print that address).  Perhaps 
the whole issue should have been reported there as well.

(Personally, I think the GCC manual is in dire need of work, especially 
as far as command-line options are considered.)

- Raw text -