On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Hans Wennborg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Charles Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This flag should be doing more stuff. This flag is supposed to request > strict ANSI conformance (according to Microsoft's, uh... "unique" > interpretation of that). That means at least (in GCC terms) > `-fno-ms-extensions`, in addition to not auto-linking `OLDNAMES.LIB`. (The > `/Ze` flag undoes the effects of `/Za`.) > > > > I seem to recall someone from MS on `cfe-dev` (and yes, they do > exist!) saying that `/Za` is broken and shouldn't be used (cf. "/Za > considered harmful" or some such). Are you sure you want to implement it, > given that? > > Right. It's not obvious what we should do for /Za. We can't disable > -fms-compatibility for instance, because then we couldn't parse some > template code that cl.exe would accept under /Za, etc. > > However, since I just added the oldnames.lib thing in a previous > patch, I think it makes sense to hook up this flag as way of turning > that off. > Yeah, I agree there's no real reason to implement all of /Za. Before this change there was a vague comment saying "there's a cl.exe flag that turns this off", when we could just go right ahead and put it in the code. I could be convinced that it's better to rip this out and make /Za explicitly unsupported.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
