Re: Convert 3.2 sources to ISO C90

[Michael Matz <matzmich at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>]

Hi,

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 law@redhat.com wrote:

> Oh please.  The stuff we're talking about is trivial -- don't use
> prototypes.  Jesus.

FWIW.  I agree with Jeff here.  Not because of knowing all facts, though:
So, maybe someone can tell me, what exactly would be done to make gcc ISO
compatible (I usually only try to program in a way "feeling traditional",
and additionally fix warnings from gcc).  _Except_ the obvious prototypes
thingies.  I for one even find it easier (or at least more aesthetic) to
read function definitions in K&R style.  The need for explicit prototypes
(even with PARAMS()) doesn't disturb me much.  I can run gcc bootstrap in
the default config, fix all warnings in the usual style, and be done with
it.  This alone is absolutely no reason to change all of the source of
gcc.  Prototypes are such a trivial matter I wouldn't even care to
discuss.  They don't clutter up readability.  What else needs to be done
with K&R?  Probably enum's and int promotions?  Anyway I would think it's
wasted energy to convert gcc to ISO meaning basically it can't be build
with HP-UX, without any observable gain (at least for me, maybe someone
can explain the gain to me).

Note also, that it's not about HP-UX especially; I would find changes
dubious anyway if they reduce usability, without any comparable gain
(and I don't think, that questionable improvements to readability (to
whose existance I even disagree, which supports the questionability) are
enough of a gain to be comparative to buildability).


Ciao,
Michael.