2011/4/2 Tomasz Kamiński: > Hi, > > I have same suggestions connected with the set of allowed values for std > flag in gcc for C and C++. According to manual, there are 3 categories of > accepted values: ISO standard reference number (ex. iso9899:1990), common > name (c90) and version with gnu extensions (ex. gnu90) . But for same > standards (amendment C90 and C++) there is only one of them supported. So mu > suggestion is to extend set of possible values to: > > c90, iso9899:1990; > gnu90 > > *c94* or *c95*, iso9899:199409; > *gnu94* or *gnu95* (optionally)
gcc/c-family/c-opts.c says "There is no concept of gnu94." > c99, iso9899:1999 > gnu99 > > c1x, *iso9899:201x* > gnu1x > > c++98, *iso14882:1998** > *gnu++98 > > c++0x,*iso14882:200x* C++0x is not an ISO standard yet, so it's not appropriate to add iso14882:200x - even when it is a standard it will probably be 2011 not 200x (you might have noticed we missed that date ;-) The same applies to c1x. Consistency is sometimes nice, but personally I don't really see any benefit to this change.
