This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU>] PATCH: obstack.c, obstack.h port to AS/400 (for Bison and gnulib)
"Joseph S. Myers" <email@example.com> writes:
| On Mon, 10 May 2004, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Do people believe that our copy of obstack should be modified to
| > reflect this proposed patch to libc (if accepted there)?
| The version of obstack we should follow is probably that in gnulib rather
| than that in glibc (though they are fairly well aligned), but as long as
| libiberty can't assume a C90 compiler
Now that GCC is requiring a C90 compiler, is there any other reason
why libiberty can't assume similar compiler?
| we can't just copy the current
| versions from gnulib but need to backport patches of interest.
| obstack was last properly updated from upstream with
| Mon Jun 1 13:47:55 1998 Jason Molenda (firstname.lastname@example.org)
| * obstack.c: Update to latest FSF version.
| Mon Jun 1 13:48:32 1998 Jason Molenda (email@example.com)
| * obstack.h: Update to latest FSF version.
those seem a bit old, and do not reflect the recent removal of uses of
cast-as-lvalue extensions. What am I missing?