Re: Bug#121282: On i386, gcc-3.0 allows $ in indentifiers but not the asm
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 10:18:37PM +0100, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > You won't be able to build X86 kernels if you do that :) Well, not
> > with things like NTFS support, at least.
>
> That isn't really true, is it? Atleast in the NTFS code, I cannot find
> such code (and I can't remember writing it, either :-).
I could have sworn it was NTFS...
util.h:
typedef enum {
FILE_$Mft = 0,
FILE_$MftMirr = 1,
etc.
I'm fairly certain that DOLLARS_IN_IDENTIFIERS affects the legality of
that enum.
> > I'm most strongly of the opinion that this isn't Debian's problem.
> > Our GCC should support whatever GCC has decided to support.
>
> GCC maintainers will keep it "on" by default as long as somebody
> shouts "I need it". I think Debian has a much clearer view of what is
> needed and what isn't, so it is in a better position than the GCC
> maintainers.
>
> GCC is frequently blamed for being to generous in accepting code as C
> and C++ which really isn't such code, for no apparent reason. Part of
> the problem is that nobody dares to remove extensions that users have
> long migrated away from.
>
> Removing extensions must happen in a phased manner: First, disable the
> option, then deprecate it, then remove support for it reporting that
> this once used to be an option, then remove all traces. If Debian
> starts to disable that feature today, there is a chance that it is
> removed in GCC in 2010.
I look at this differently; it's our job to be accepting and GCC's job
to be conformant. With Joseph and others actively deprecating
extensions, that seems a better place to take this up.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: