This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: Deprecate C++ options
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: RFA: Deprecate C++ options
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 23:50:04 -0700
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>, Tim Hollebeek <tim at hollebeek dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <20010906215505.T386@codesourcery.com> <214780000.999838795@warlock.codesourcery.com>
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 09:59:55PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> >Here's another proposal, which might sound radical, but I bet it'd
> >have even less user-visible impact: Let's drop support for every host
> >and target that doesn't have a C89-compliant standard library. That
> >would mean, for instance, we could throw away fix-header and about
> >two-thirds of fixincludes.
>
> I assume that you're exempting embedded targets with no real
> standard library at all?
Yep. I'm speaking only of pre-C89 hosted libraries. To a first
approximation, the targets I don't like are the ones where fix-header
has to make up header files in order to meet C89 basic requirements.
Think SVR3, BSD4.2, etc.
And yes, I do mean targets. We're well insulated from pre-C89 host
libraries by libiberty and careful coding. It's the K+R target
libraries that cause headaches.
zw