Re: Deprecating -traditional has passed the SC

["Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>]

 > From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
 > 
 > On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
 > 
 > > The GCC Steering Committee has voted to deprecate -traditional in gcc
 > > version 3.1 with the caveats that:
 > 
 > Is this intended for removal in 3.2 (that is, a deprecation message
 > "-traditional is deprecated and will be removed in GCC 3.2", with the
 > actual removal on the mainline any time after 3.1 branches), or some
 > indeterminate future version?  If 3.2, shouldn't the deprecation message
 > go in 3.0.3 as well, to give people more warning?

I think the version in which it actually gets zapped is still up in
the air, so please just say something to the effect that it might be
removed in a future release.

There were two main reasons to remove -traditional, the support burden
in gcc and the fact that the glibc headers don't support a K&R mode.
We only were able to agree as a group to deprecate -traditional if we
allow for the possibility that someone comes along to rectify glibc.
So we can't say for sure that in 3.2 it goes away.

We didn't specifically vote about 3.0.3.  I don't see a reason to rush
in the warning, but I would personally leave that up to the RM Mark.


 > > 2.  We'll reverse course if a volunteer steps forward to support
 > >     -traditional in glibc.
 > 
 > A volunteer for this would not necessarily mean that the glibc maintainers
 > would have any interest in accepting a patch to support -traditional in
 > glibc.


Quite true.

--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Internet Solutions