Feigning erudition, Keith Packard wrote: % Around 0 o'clock on Feb 4, "Mike A. Harris" wrote: % % > Is there anywhere in the X source code that *gasp* uses ANSI % > trigraphs and relies on this broken^Wwonderful feature of ANSI C % > being enabled? ;o) % % I sure hope not. I've certainly never seen any such code (and would have % fixed it if I had). % % > I'm wondering wether disabling trigraphs by default in stock % > sources is considered OK, or if I should have my patch escape the % > trigraph sequences to not be tokenized instead? % % You should fix your patch to not use that trigraph. Does GCC have a mode % that pukes if it finds any trigraphs? That would be a better option than % disabling them; X gets built with other compilers still, some of which % might not have an option to disable trigraphs.
Well, there's ``-trigraphs'', but this turns *on* support for trigraphs. The interesting thing here is that ``-ansi'' automatically turns on ``-trigraphs''. ``-Wtrigraphs'', on the other hand, warns about trigraphs that change program meaning, but disregards trigraphs within comments because they don't affect the meaning of the code. ;-) Kurt -- If anything can go wrong, it will. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
