This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Maintenance patch for protoize
- To: Manfred Hollstein <mhollstein at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: Maintenance patch for protoize
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:52:18 -0600
- cc: geoffk at ozemail dot com dot au, egcs-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, brolley at cygnus dot com, bothner at cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <14274.55228.623157.5997@saturn.hollstein.net>you write:
> On Tue, 24 August 1999, 00:14:01, law@cygnus.com wrote:
>
> [patch for protoize deleted]
> >
> > Are people still using protoize/unprotoize? Do they really belong in gc
> c, or
> > should they be separate? I guess I'm wondering about what we gain by ke
> eping
> > this stuff around in the first place.
>
> I used to build protoize/unprotoize all the time while I was working at
> Alcatel; the programs helped me a lot in migrating lots of K&R code to
> ANSI-C. But, this was sometimes in 1994... I didn't use it since.
OK. This is about what I was expecting.
> Might actually be a good idea to create a separate package. If nobody
> objects (and I'll find some time ;-), I'll create a patch.
I suspect that's the case. It's not a high priority item, but it does allow us
clean things up some, which is a good thing.
The only worry I'd have is protoize/unprotoize's desire to know where the
gcc include files live. Though that may (or may not) be historical.
jeffv