Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!tkou02.enet.dec.com!diamond
From: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com ("diamond@tkovoa")
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: #pragma
Message-ID: <9012050330.AA04857@decpa.pa.dec.com>
Date: 5 Dec 90 03:30:28 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 21

In article <14641@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>I think a large fraction of X3J11 would deny that their original intention
>was that #pragma could not affect semantics.  Certainly the final standard
>allows it to.
 
In that case, why should unrecognized #pragmas be ignored?  If their
original intent was that programs could depend on #pragma to obtain correct
results (correct for the program), then they would have specified that
unrecognized #pragmas draw diagnostics.  This seems very strange.
 
OK, in some contexts, it has been suggested that the standard does not
forbid an implementation to produce extraneous, even misleading, diagnostics
for a conforming program, as long as it executes the program correctly.
Thus, can a quality implementation produce a quasi-extraneous, non-misleading
diagnostic for an unrecognized #pragma?  There is additional context here,
that unrecognized #pragmas are required to be ignored.  Is quality even
permitted here?
--
Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC    diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
                                    (tkou02 is scheduled for demolition)
We steer like a sports car:  I use opinions; the company uses the rack.