This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC Steering Committee decision on ISO C conversion
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: rsandifo at redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:28:37 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: GCC Steering Committee decision on ISO C conversion
- References: <200206131529.LAA09532@caip.rutgers.edu>
> From: Richard Sandiford <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <email@example.com> writes:
> > The GCC Steering Committee was asked to consider dropping traditional
> > (K&R) C support in the GCC sources and allow converting everything to
> > ISO C. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-06/msg00337.html
> Sorry if I've missed it, but is there a list of what changes you mean?
> Or is that still to be decided?
> Like, is it just removing PARAMS for now? Or are we going to start
> using new-style function declarations? Convert boolean parameters
> to 'bool' instead of 'int'?
I highlighted PARAMS removal because its something we'll allow as
"obvious" checkins. But there's a lot more we can do for ISO C90
E.g. as you suggested above, you can convert to the new function
definitions and use bool parameters. But you can also convert
VPARAMS, DEFUN, PTR, VA_OPEN (really VA_*). Also stuff from symcat.h,
namely CONCAT* and STRINGX. You can also rely on using string
concatenation and other ISO C90 features if the current code was
uglified for traditional C compatibility.
All of these need to go through the standard review and approval
process and adhere to our coding style conventions but are definitely
part of the conversion.
I probably left something out, but use ISO C90 as your guide.
Kaveh R. Ghazi Director of Systems Architecture
firstname.lastname@example.org Qwest Solutions