Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #2855Re: Undefined #pragmas are evil
From: Andrew Koenig
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 16:30
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 16:30
20 lines
1610 bytes
1610 bytes
In article <sourceDIwJ2M.3DL@netcom.com> source@netcom.com (David Harmon) writes: > Any #pragma that is not recognized and supported by an implementation > _must_ generate a diagnostic! A pragma that had some important meaning > when the code was written should not be silently ignored when some new > compiler doesn't spell it the same way. This is just plain wrong. But how can a standard require this? A compiler vendor that wants to issue diagnostics for unrecognized pragmas can always do so. One that doesn't want to issue diagnostics can always say `Our implementation defines all pragmas not explicitly stated otherwise to have no effect.' Then there are no unrecognized pragmas and the requirement is met in letter, if not in spirit. -- --Andrew Koenig ark@research.att.com [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu. Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu. The moderation policy is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<DJ2D78.Fs9@research.att.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!taumet!clamageReferences:
<9511292357.AA11227@getafix.infosoft.com> <49j043$2ga@engnews1.eng.sun.com> <sourceDIwJ2M.3DL@netcom.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!taumet!clamage From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Undefined #pragmas are evil Date: 4 Dec 1995 16:30:32 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ Approved: clamage@eng.sun.com (comp.std.c++) Message-ID: <DJ2D78.Fs9@research.att.com> References: <9511292357.AA11227@getafix.infosoft.com> <49j043$2ga@engnews1.eng.sun.com> <sourceDIwJ2M.3DL@netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: taumet.eng.sun.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 801 X-Lines: 16 Originator: clamage@taumet