This is the mail archive of the email@example.com mailing list for the gas2 project.
|Index Nav:||[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]|
|Message Nav:||[Date Prev] [Date Next]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
> From: Ruediger Helsch <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > I am quite surprised to find that everybody thinks that GCC and LD > > should be changed. We modified them for our Linux distributions because > > we wanted strict C standard and POSIX conformance. But the standard > > conformant behaviour can also break many programs which rely on COMMONS. > > We had e.g. to adapt the X11 config files to use "cc -ansi -fcommon". It would be correct to say that the X programs in question are not strict ANSI (or ISO), but does the standard mandate that a diagnostic be issued for such programs, or does it merely leave their behavior undefined or unspecified? Just because a test suite complains that it doesn't see a diagnostic does not mean that a diagnostic is mandated. Ulrich Drepper writes: > I don't think at all that the standard behaviour should be to disallow > commons. We use it in some places in glibc. Having -ansi imply -fno-common but not having it be the default is an option (I'm not sure it is the right option). > It should be disallowed to match a common var with a function in the > shared. This never makes sense. Yes. > I think gcc -ansi should really be ANSI compliant (btw, what about > changing the name to -iso since the official name is ISO C?) If you wish to add -iso as a synonym, fine. But ANSI is just as official as ISO (in a more limited geographical area, of course), and the switch is in wide use.