This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: PATCH RFA: Support Plan 9 extensions in gcc


Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> Plan 9 provides such an implementation in the field to use as a basis for 
> a standards proposal.  What do the Plan 9 compiler maintainers plan to do 
> regarding their extensions if C1x ends up standardising something 
> conflicting? 

We shouldn't take the attitude that we expect everyone to standardize
everything.  A lot of the time, dealing with the ISO process just isn't
worth it.  After all, there are lots of GNU extensions that nobody has
ever tried to standardize through ISO.

We also don't need to worry about what the Plan 9 compiler maintainers
might do.  We just need to worry about what we might do.  And, I think
that's pretty clear: if we can't support the Plan 9 extensions along
with some other feature we think is more important, we'll drop the Plan
9 extensions.  A note to that effect seems fine, if people think that's
helpful.

The question to me is whether there is enough desire from the user
community for these extensions.  Are there other cases of people wanting
to compile code with these extensions?  If it's just Ian's code, it
seems hard to make a case for carrying this in FSF GCC.  But, if it's
like the Microsoft case, where there are zillions of lines of code out
there that are under active use, then I think it's clear that this is a
useful feature.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713


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