Re: Convert 3.2 sources to ISO C90

[law at redhat dot com]

 In message <3CFFA0BD.896F4E02@apple.com>, Stan Shebs writes:
 > Portability refers to architecture, not compilability by random
 > vendor compilers.  For instance, we can't bootstrap GCC on Windows
 > by using VC++, and it's a good thing let me tell you - we victimized
 > GDB in that way years ago, and there was much huzzah-ing when we
 > finally got rid of all that crud.  I once did horrible things to GCC
 > ca 1989 to get Mac MPW C to compile it, and I can assure you that
 > you're very glad it never contaminated FSF GCC.
I don't disagree at all about this stuff.  But what you're trying to do
is take code which currently works with a class of compilers and
break it.  Effectively saying "I don't care about you anymore".  And
that IMHO is a huge mistake.

 > Perhaps it is going too far.  But GCC is the working compiler upon
 > which many of us depend for our livelihoods, and it's become an old
 > body of source code.  It was only a couple of years ago that we started
 > considering the deletion of obsolete configurations for instance;
 > before that it was like every file was sacred, even if it was actively
 > misleading.  So it's important to question every bit of the status
 > quo, and to make sure that the code doesn't fossilize because people
 > are too afraid or too comfortable to update it.
Actually, I've been recommending we drop platforms for a long time
now.  But only those platforms which are dead.  HPUX with the bundled
compiler is far from a dead platform.

jeff