> > On Oct 25, 2005, at 6:22 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > We have people already complaining about removing extensions. Why > > should we change > > this implementionation defined documented behavior. > > I'm not convinced that "extension" is a proper term for this > behavior. It is more like an incompatibility with the rest of the > world's compilers. The reason for change is to conform to a de-facto > standard, and thus ease the migration of future gcc customers to our > compiler. > > These hypothetical customers coming from MS, EDG-based, or > CodeWarrior compilers might have code that looks like: > > // A poorly formatted comment \\ > int x = 0; > int y = 1; > ...
But this is not an extension at all. This is an implementation defined behavior which is different than what an extension would do. People depending on this is not the correct thing do any ways as there could be another compiler besides which GCC which does this. Please read what implemenation defined means, this is what you are talking about. Also Note there is a much older PR about this, PR 8270: http://gcc.gnu.org/PR8270. -- Pinski
