This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: Deprecate C++ options
- To: Tim Hollebeek <tim at hollebeek dot com>
- Subject: Re: RFA: Deprecate C++ options
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 23:21:36 +0100 (BST)
- cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
> In the real world, people need to be able to compile old software. I
> propose that the lifetime of -fno-for-scope and friends be mandated to
> be no shorter than that of -traditional (conservatively, let's call
> that 1-2 decades). Yes, it is a PITA for compiler developers to support
... and it's over a decade since C89 was released, somewhat longer than
that since ANSI C drafts were being widely distributed and used, so what
do people think of deprecating -traditional now and removing it in 3.2?
The rationale from a proposal to remove -traditional I drafted a while ago
-traditional complicates the compiler with code to support
(incompletely) a poorly defined language dialect that has been
obsoleted by a language standard for over a decade (and to a large
extent by widely distributed ANSI C drafts for some time before that).
Because of the use of flag_traditional in dwarf2out.c and dwarfout.c,
other front ends gratuitously need to include definitions of it.
-traditional does not work with the GNU C library, and in general has
become obsolete, not useful (the only times I've actually wanted
pre-ISO C compilation have been for old IOCCC entries, and
-traditional hasn't worked for them) and a maintenance burden because
of additional code to understand and preserve when changing the
compiler, instead of simply following the C standard; I don't know
pre-ISO C so there's no guarantee that such -traditional behaviour
will get correctly preserved. Previous versions of the compiler
remain available for people wanting -traditional support.
Joseph S. Myers