This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: RFA: Deprecate C++ options


On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 11:45:47PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Can you honestly say that those people are not better off sticking
> with 2.x?  We have enough trouble keeping the mainline usable on
> modern targets...

I'd be much more likely to be in favour of converting gcc sources
itself to C89.  I.e. do away with PARAMS, remove (int)enum, assume
stdargs, etc.  In that case, one can use gcc 2.x to build gcc 3.x,
and then you're happy.

But if we assume a C89 library, you can _never_ build gcc 3.x on
that old system.  Well, "never" is too strong -- it depends on
whether the missing functionality can be hidden with libiberty.

Moreover, there are fixincludes hacks needed even for supposedly
compliant system headers, so I don't think we'll ever be able to
get rid of that.  At which point I don't think we're gaining much
in the way of maintainence improvement.


r~


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