https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109936
--- Comment #21 from Adam Wozniak <adam at wozniakconsulting dot com> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16) > It is funny arguing with folks who write parts of GCC on an idea of > integrated vs seperate preprocessor really. yeah, i've been pounding out C since the late 80s, my dinosaur is probably showing. they'll probably call me in 2038 like they called the old COBOL programmers for Y2K. it's weird to me to think of them not separately. i've even used the C preprocessor in contexts unrelated to parsing C code. it's also weird to see someone who thinks of the C preprocessor only in terms of its service to the compiler. whatever, that's drifting off topic. main point for me was, i don't see any other reason to disallow these unicode chars other than "the spec says so". i don't see any HARM in allowing them, and i certainly see use cases where there is BENEFIT to allowing them. not all macro args get turned into C++ identifiers. some get thrown away. some get stringified. in the particular case where i tripped over this, they get thrown away, and i have ANOTHER postprocessing step that picks them up and does other magic stuff with them. also, there's probably a really good case for allowing some of these things, like emoji, actually be allowed as C++ identifiers.
