This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Convert 3.2 sources to ISO C90
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:33:45 -0600
- Subject: Re: Convert 3.2 sources to ISO C90
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <3CFE6EC4.D8655A12@apple.com>, Stan Shebs writes:
> Now that 3.1 is out, and we've flushed lots of old obsolete configs
> from the sources, it's a good time to consider dropping the
> anachronistic requirement that GCC sources be written in K&R C.
> Once upon a time, this was the right thing to do; there were many
> systems for which only an ancient C compiler was available, and
> in the absence of effective cross-compilation machinery, it was
> necessary that GCC be compilable by the ancient host compiler.
> The situation today is quite different. While there may still be
> hosts for which only a pre-ISO compiler is available from the
> vendor (HPs come to mind), there aren't any that don't already
> have a GCC port, and there is no chance that any new ones will
> materialize in the future.
> In fact, the era of K&R compilers is so far past that many of our
> younger developers have never even seen such a compiler, and GCC's
> rules of K&R compatibility are just this mumbo-jumbo that takes
> cycles away from real development. Admittedly, it's not a huge
> cost, but why spend even small amounts of time on something that's
> no longer needed?
> So I'd like to formally propose that the K&R compatibility requirement
> be dropped for 3.2, and that patches converting K&R syntax to pure
> ISO be accepted as obvious improvements.
I *still* think this is a bad idea. In fact we've received bug reports within
the last couple weeks due to folks trying to build on HPs using the bundled
compiler and running into cases where ANSI-isms have crept into the sources.
We still need to support systems which don't come with an ANSI compiler.