------- Additional Comments From j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2005-08-19 13:57 ------- (In reply to comment #2)
> Confirmed, note I would actually disable binary constants by default > instead of what the patch currently does, pedwarns about them. Curious: why? There are more than two dozen GCC language extensions enabled by default, most of them would allow GCC to accept a program that will not be accepted by a different compiler. E.g., I'd consider most targets silently accepting dollar signs in identifiers to be at least similarly or even more dangerous. I simply followed the established practice in my suggested implementation. > Or maybe pedwarn about them by default with an option to turn off > that pedwarn. That would equally apply to about all extension. I'd rather suggest to have something like -Wgcc-extensions, and perhaps include that by default into -Wall. This would make anyone aware of the GCC extensions used in their applications. Differentiating between ``good'' and ``not so good'' GCC extensions seems to be a bit strange to me. Maybe two levels of GCC extension warnings would be appropriate, so any extension keywords starting with two underscores would only be warned at an additional level (-Wall-gcc-extensions, or perhaps only by -pedantic), as these have been used by the developers deliberately. (That should cover any case of __attribute__, __inline__, __asm__ and such being implicitly used by operating system headers, etc.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23479
