H. Peter Anvin writes ...
>
> It doesn't change the meaning of the program, because I have, very
> explicitly, turned the abominations called trigraphs *OFF*. I don't
> care one bit if it never compiles with a non-gcc compiler ever again,
> because it has 2^n other gcc extensions to the language.
<rant>
If you aren't a linux kernel maintainer (and heavens knows there are
plenty of other programs compiled with gcc, even if the linux kernel
folks fail to realize that), you care about portability.
Personally, I love being warned that what I've written might behave
differently on 64-bit pointer environments, or other compilers, or
... whatever.
Let's add a new flag for linux:
-fhead-stuck-in-ground-believing-only-linux-matters.
Today I was writing a parser that rewrites C programs to guarantee
certain important properties (among them, security!). It works
wonderfully on many OSs. It does not work on Linux. Why? Because
the Linux headers are absolutely riddled with completely unnecessary
uses of gcc extensions.
I really hate how Linux kernel and libc maintainers insist on
"embracing and extending" the ISO C standard.
</rant>
-Tim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 21:00:13 EST