On 2017-05-31 09:00:21 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > On 2017-05-31 01:11 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > However, GCC knows about standard headers, so that it could > > blacklist <stdint.h> as a special case. > > > I don't think so... We can't blacklist a header just because it is > named stdint.h. That's a worse behaviour which is not portable. > > There are many headers "not portable" in the environment. > For example, linux/random.h, bits/stdc++.h and emmintrin.h. > Should we blacklist them all with -std=c90 -pedantic-errors? More than "not portable", they are non-standard. So, they could just be regarded as user code (with a dependency on them). So, there are no reasons to blacklist them. <stdint.h> is different because it is standard in C99+, even in free-standing implementations. Thus it cannot be user code (possible except for old, no longer maintained software supporting C90 *only*, but in that case, -pedantic-errors wouldn't be used). > See the discussion in] > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26502307/gcc-options-for-strict-c90-code>. > I think we should check the usage of headers ourselves. Perhaps. In most cases, this would be sufficient to detect portability issues. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
