This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [mainline] PATCH to diagnostic.[hc]

"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:

| On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| > This is mainline where we assume ISO C90.
| 
| A C90 compiler (e.g. older GCC), not necessarily a C90 library (except to
| the extent to which libiberty emulates one - and though there have been
| discussions of putting a *printf reimplementation in libiberty, it hasn't
| happened yet).

I'm not sure we do really want to make that pedantic distinction.
Was distinction  the SC voted on?
I do not believe it would bring any value over the previous K+R
requirement.  

-- Gaby
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]