This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC Steering Committee decision on ISO C conversion
> From: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo@redhat.com>
>
> "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> writes:
> > E.g. as you suggested above, you can convert to the new function
> > definitions and use bool parameters. But you can also convert
> > VPARAMS, DEFUN, PTR, VA_OPEN (really VA_*). Also stuff from symcat.h,
> > namely CONCAT* and STRINGX. You can also rely on using string
> > concatenation and other ISO C90 features if the current code was
> > uglified for traditional C compatibility.
>
> OK. I was thinking really about whether there were going to be
> new coding conventions. Like, is the new-style function definition
> syntax going to be the "official" way of writing functions, in the
> parts are now ISO C only? Or will we stick to the old style?
> That's only one example, of course.
> Richard
Yes, in the ISO C90 sections we want to use the ISO C90 function
definition style. (Certainly for new functions that one writes.)
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi Director of Systems Architecture
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Solutions