This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: cp/decl.c
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Jeffrey Turner <jturner at mail dot alum dot rpi dot edu>
- Cc: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 11:16:31 -0800
- Subject: Re: cp/decl.c
- References: <200112230948.AA227279166@mail.alum.rpi.edu>
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 09:48:14AM -0500, Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >
> >> Don't advertise this please, but I've been thinking about
> >> reopening the K&R compat issue for 3.2, since it's getting
> >> pretty anachronistic.
> >
> >Judging from Phil Edward's response, you aren't the only one.
>
> This really makes sense - only the bootstrap section of
> code should maintain maximum backward compatibility.
> All other code, which ought to be compiled by gcc, should
> be written using modern syntax.
This was addressed upthread.
> I would like to join as a card-carrying maintainer myself.
> I'm looking into breaking cp/decl.c into smaller files.
> I hope this would include cp/decl2.c and their headers as
> well.
I'm not a C++ maintainer but this sounds like a good idea. (Breaking
up huge files is usually a good idea.)
> Is anyone working on getting rid of system.h by making configure do
> the work?
You're severely confused about the purpose of system.h if you think
this is desirable.
zw