On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote: > >> If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a patch. >> >> I don't think it must be restricted to system headers, as it is possible >> that the user 'imports' such a function (and define it in one of VMS >> favorite languages such as macro-32 or bliss). > > If it's not restricted to system headers, then probably the option is > better than the target hook.
Is it ok with this option name (-fdecc-extensions) or do you prefer a more generic option name, such as -fallow-unnamed-variadic-functions ? Tristan.
