-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 03:43:15PM -0700, Eric Christopher wrote: > >Don't you think it is reasonable to fix horrible coding errors like > >this, you are just asking for maintenance problems. In the short > >term, kludging may make sense, in the long term it sounds a bad idea > >to keep such non-portable code around. > > The problem is that it's portable to every other compiler we've > tested. I am curious what icc and xlc do, but those are the only two > not tested.
s/portable/happens to work/g? I can understand that, all other things being equal, we (FSFians and the Appleanians) would rather have that one more big codebase building with GCC than not. All other things are *not* equal, alas; it would be a change we make *at the expense of* some other set of interests. Maybe GCC needs -fi-know-my-code-is-broken-but-i-and-wont-fix-it=0x29481 that sets a bitmap of alternate behaviours to pander to what "all other compilers" (or rather, some subset of that) happen to do right now. Can we break the impasse by having the behaviour under control of the command line, and issuing a warning whenever a backslash appears at the end of a C++-style comment - a risky construct in general? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFDYJ5DwyMv24BBd/gRAkjLAJoDvEpHDfRIPanYqZLeuV6cneLJqACeLm9k NuoS1l3t5HgwShKs415zn2A= =tpRY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
