On Oct 3, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Douglas Rupp wrote: > >> On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, 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. >>> >> I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here. This seems fairly VMS specific >> so what is the downside for a target hook and user written headers? > > The language accepted by the compiler in the user's source code (as > opposed to in system headers) shouldn't depend on the target except for > certain well-defined areas such as target attributes and built-in > functions; behaving the same across different systems is an important > feature of GCC. This isn't one of those areas of target-dependence; it's > generic syntax rather than e.g. exploiting a particular processor feature.
So the consensus is for a dedicated option. Which one do you prefer ? -funnamed-variadic-parameter -fpointless-variadic-functions -fallow-parameterless-variadic-functions I will update my patch once this is settled. Thanks, Tristan.
