This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: ISO C prototype style for libiberty?

From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
To: zack at codesourcery dot com
Cc: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:51:44 -0500
Subject: Re: ISO C prototype style for libiberty?
References: <m3wtrvbfto.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><200503260454.j2Q4srOL022020@greed.delorie.com><m3mzsrt2vu.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><200503260518.j2Q5IftY022428@greed.delorie.com> <87eke3rmpq.fsf@codesourcery.com>

> I take it that all libiberty-using projects have taken the plunge,
> then?  You vetoed this conversion awhile back because libiberty had
> to be done last.

At this point, I think libiberty *is* the last.

> What's your opinion on dropping C89 library routines from libiberty?

What would that buy us?  I mean, aside from the obvious "less to
maintain" reason?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ISO C prototype style for libiberty?
  - From: Zack Weinberg

References:
- ISO C prototype style for libiberty?
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: ISO C prototype style for libiberty?
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: ISO C prototype style for libiberty?
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: ISO C prototype style for libiberty?
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: ISO C prototype style for libiberty?
  - From: Zack Weinberg

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]