https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #11 from steveren <q....@rsn-tech.co.uk> --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10) > (In reply to steveren from comment #6) > > Seems the consensus is that it's not contrary to Standard, but it's agreed > > to be confusing and undesirable by everyone except the gcc maintainers :-) > > Not sure how you reached such conclusion, but it clearly misinterprets > reality, otherwise this PR would be closed as INVALID already. Ok, my apologies. However, this bug /was/ closed as invalid before being reopened, and my own report was closed as invalid before being marked as a dupe of this one, so it's not entirely clear that there's a general feeling of a real problem that needs to be addressed. > I'm pretty sure if you submitted a patch making the behavior of all pragmas > consistent with comment #9, But I don't /want/ behaviour consistent with #9 (ie, warning that the usage is invalid), I want the usage to be valid /and/ sensible - ie, the same as other compilers. I suspect that's more difficult... Don't get me wrong - I'm not whingeing that other people should solve my problems for me without being prepared to get involved myself, but if this is WAD in the eyes of the majority, then I'll live with it sooner than create my own fork! So assuming it's not actually beyond somebody completely unfamiliar with the innards of gcc, what would be the response to a patch which changed #pragma message from 'statement' to 'not-a-statement'?
