On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Tristan Gingold <ging...@adacore.com> wrote: > > 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 ? >
As observed earlier, there is nothing DEC-C specific about this, so -fdecc-extensions isnt appropriate. "unnamed variadic functions" sounds as if the function itself is unnamed, so not good. -funnamed-variadic-parameter -fpointless-variadic-functions
