On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Shawn Walker wrote: > I've been trying to figure out how to activate the gnu_compat flag > that ube apparently supports via cc -Wu,<option here>.
ube is the name of the x86/x64 code generator of sun's compilers. And the option you mention is about assembly level compatibility. > I suspect that this should fix the problems I'm having compiling code > that uses a few common gcc extensions such as range of values > initialisation syntax for arrays like: > > array[ 0 ... 0x80 ] = value; For such functionality you would need the C, C++ frontends options if the functionality is supported by the forntends. But, what functionality exactly you are talking about? $cat r.c int array[ 0 ... 0x80 ] = 0; $/gcc r.c r.c:1: error: expected ']' before '...' token $gcc --version gcc (GCC) 4.2.0 Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. So could you please be a little bit more specific about what feature you are talking about. > *rant follows, read only if you work for Sun* > > Which brings me to a side question of *why the bleepity bleep* would > you ship functionality and then not document it at all? If we document something we intend to support it. If we dont't support a functionality (say it is only half ready or buggy) we don't want to document it. Unfortunately saying "we don't support so and so hidden option" doesn't help at all. Anything published brings up questions. You starting this thread and me answering is a perfect example, right? :-) > It isn't very fair to folks that use Sun Studio to be tormented and > teased with compiler options that would solve our immediate problems > while internal Sun folks are freely available to use them. The way to publish unsupported options is currently under discussion. For now check out http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Wizard_Options > Yes they > may break into pieces and I get to keep all of them, but that's what > interface stability documentation is for. > > These options should be at least listed somewhere under "NOT SUPPORTED > IN ANY WAY complaints go to /dev/null" or stability volatile. Whatever > assuages your conscience. > Withholding valuable functionality that obviously works well enough to > let internal Sun folks use and shipping it to external users without > letting them know how to use it is rather infuriating. > > Thanks, > -- > Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ > > "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not > tried it. " --Donald Knuth > _______________________________________________ > tools-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list [email protected]
