https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45599
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45599
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'd just go for RESOLVED INVALID. We don't want to remove the code that
implements a supported feature.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45599
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED
CC|
--- Comment #4 from tom dot browder at gmail dot com 2010-09-08 15:29
---
Oops, I missed that PR. I still think that an optional warning should be
there--something like "-Wpragma-once" with a message about the better practice.
(Sorry I missed finding the original bug--I only looked at
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 15:04 ---
At one point we deprecated it and then undeprecated it. See PR 11569.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45599
--- Comment #2 from tom dot browder at gmail dot com 2010-09-08 15:02
---
Ah, you are correct--old code may have that only. How about a warning instead
about using the recommended construct (the header guard) instead of the "pragma
once"?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 14:46 ---
>#pragma once
Can you explain why you think it can be completely ignored? It can be used
without macro guards.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
