https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #5 from Austin Morton <austinpmorton at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> The docs raise some questions.
>
> They say that a #pragma region must be ended by a #pragma endregion. Should
> the compiler check that and issue a diagnostic otherwise?
>
> What is the form of the optional "name" that follows #pragma region?
>
> What if #pragma endregion is followed by preprocessor tokens, not just a
> comment?
>
> If we don't care about validating anything, it's easy to make GCC completely
> ignore those pragmas:
>
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c-pragma.cc
> +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-pragma.cc
> @@ -1218,6 +1218,15 @@ handle_pragma_message (cpp_reader *ARG_UNUSED(dummy))
> TREE_STRING_POINTER (message));
> }
>
> +/* Ignore a no-op pragma that GCC recognizes, but which has no effect. */
> +static void
> +handle_pragma_ignore (cpp_reader *)
> +{
> + tree x;
> + while (pragma_lex (&x) != CPP_EOF)
> + /* Ignore the rest of the line. */;
> +}
> +
> /* Mark whether the current location is valid for a STDC pragma. */
>
> static bool valid_location_for_stdc_pragma;
> @@ -1633,6 +1642,9 @@ init_pragma (void)
> c_register_pragma ("GCC", "pop_options", handle_pragma_pop_options);
> c_register_pragma ("GCC", "reset_options", handle_pragma_reset_options);
>
> + c_register_pragma (0, "region", handle_pragma_ignore);
> + c_register_pragma (0, "endregion", handle_pragma_ignore);
> +
> c_register_pragma ("STDC", "FLOAT_CONST_DECIMAL64",
> handle_pragma_float_const_decimal64);
>
>
>
> This needs tests though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553182.html
I sent a patch to do exactly that in 2020 and it was not accepted.
This seems like a very easy win.
Both major competitors to GCC (clang and MSVC) implement this pragma exactly
like in my patch (by completely ignoring it).
As it stands today, this is plainly a deficiency in GCC when compared to its
competition.
