Re: problems with iso restrict

[Jeffrey A Law <law at hurl dot cygnus dot com>]

  In message <19981204115040.B12670@dot.cygnus.com>you write:
  > On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 12:07:52PM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
  > > *Right now*, I would think GNU C should be backwards compatible with exis
  > ting
  > > GNU C implementations.  If that means c9x should not be the default right
  >  now
  > > because of namespace pollution with "restrict", then so be it.
  > 
  > How about the following patch.  It removes -std=gnu in favour of
  > -std=gnu89 and -std=gnu9x.  This obviates the suggestion made 
  > earlier for such nastiness as -std=c9x -ansi.
The patch seems reasonable to me.

The next thing to do is make an educated decision about when to change the
default to be c9x.  I think this decision mostly hinges on whether or not the
next major release should have c9x enabled by default or not.  (Yes, this
means I'm leaning towards egcs-1.2 branching from the mainline sources instead
of a continuation of the egcs-1.1 branch).

My gut tells me we announce support for c9x in the next major release (1.2),
but do not enable it by default until one major release after that (1.3).

This gives folks a chance to transition their code to be c9x complaint.  Of
course to do that they need info on c9x's features (web page anyone?) and
info on how closely we follow the standard.  I want this information regardless
of when we decide to make c9x the default so that I can put it in the egcs news
section on the web page.

jeff