On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Ronan Keryell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:53:07 +0300, Dmitri Gribenko < > [email protected]> said: > > > > Dmitri> The rationale for my change is that if one has some C++ code > > Dmitri> that is being compiled in C++98 mode, offering C99 isn't of > > Dmitri> much help, since most C++ features are not C99-compatible. > > > > Yes, I understand. > > > > I was just thinking also to the poor lost guys that use the C++ compiler > > to compile their C code... :-) > > > > That sounds crazy but this happens. > > This is an interesting viewpoint, but it should be applied > consistently to all our diagnostics. I don't think that we aim to > educate the programmer with diagnostics. > > Although we have to admit that there are programmers who learn > language features by playing with their implementation in a particular > compiler. > This patch matches our current approach for features which are extensions in both C99 and C++11, and I don't see a compelling reason to change that approach. LGTM, though it saddens me that we have so many different places issuing the same trio of diagnostics. Thanks! Richard
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
