This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: fixincludes for glibc 'inline' non-C99 conformance
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
I don't see how backing out the patch will permit anyone else to make
progress. Users cannot update their code to be C99-compliant if they
have no compiler that will accept the resulting program.
That's a false dichotomy: you could always provide an additional option
to use the C99 semantics, e.g., -fc99-extern-inline, or -std=notgnuc99.
I'm big on standards compliance, and I'm not at all big on extensions,
but I don't think your change is appropriate without more warning,
discussion, etc. It's just too abrupt.
In the recent discussion about whether to allow conversions between
vectors with different base types, people (including Apple people) went
back and checked what older compilers did, because they were concerned
about breaking existing code -- even though any such code would be
non-comforming relative to the Altivec PIM, etc.
The bottom line is that right now there is controversy. You feel your
patch is appropriate; some other experienced maintainers don't. Why not
back it out (or conditionalize it) and work to build consensus?
(650) 331-3385 x713