This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: codingconventions.html update for new intl directory

>>On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> +<p>Some of GCC's source files are still written with the expectation
>> +that they must be usable with "K+R" (pre-standard) compilers.  Patches
>> +to convert such files to ISO C are welcome.  However, please keep the
>> +style of any given file consistent; do not introduce new-style
>> +function definitions in a file that currently uses old-style, unless
>> +you are converting the entire file.  (Functions that take a variable
>> +number of arguments are an exception.  They should be written in ISO C
>> +style even if the rest of the file is still in K+R style.)</p>

Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>This paragraph is now misleading.  All of the gcc/ directory (except maybe
>parts of config/) uses ISO C function definitions - the files can hardly

Uh, nope.  The whole of ada/ still needs to be converted.  (Does ACT ever
contribute anything to gcc?...)

>any longer be considered to be written to be usable with K&R compilers,
>but there will still be embedded K&R assumptions (other than function
>definition style, e.g. lack of string concatentation and excess casts)
>that should freely be converted to ISO C. While libiberty may have its own

Nathanael Nerode  <neroden at>

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]