This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
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: Marc Espie <espie at quatramaran dot ens dot fr>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:43:22 -0600
- Subject: Re: Convert 3.2 sources to ISO C90
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <3CFF8DC8.31ED5081@apple.com>, Stan Shebs writes:
> But I don't have one, nor do most GCC developers. We basically
> have to rely on the handful of HP maintainers to be the oracles
> of whether GCC is properly K&R compatible.
Oh please. The stuff we're talking about is trivial -- don't use
prototypes. Jesus.
> OK, so let me get this straight - GCC has to have K&R compat because
> Red Hat has customers who are too stingy to spring for acc, but who must
> have spent lots of money on a support contract if they're getting onsite
> support.
Get real. Why should anyone (Red Hat customer or not) have to purchase the
unbundled HP compiler to bootstrap GCC. The whole point behind that
was to provide a real world example of the kinds of problems we're going to
run into if you start ANSI-ifying GCC.
> What are you going to do when GCC sources change in some way that
> triggers a fatal bug in HP's bundled compiler? Are we all going to
> be required to know how to code around that bug?
We'll get HP to fix the bug. Been there, done that. They're more than happy
to fix bugs in their compiler proper.
> Is HP really so important that we have to hobble GCC for HP's
> convenience?
Is having prototypes so important that we're going to make it impossible to
bootstrap GCC on HPs using the native compiler?
jeff