Patch for C99 mixed declarations and code

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > A mandatory pedwarn would provide a nicer migration path for users - it
> > could be accompanied by a notice of deprecation in the release notes, and
> > the syntax removed from the trunk after 3.0 branches.
>
> In my experience such practice does not help real users(tm), because these tend
> not to update for every release (but sometimes skipping a few, waiting for
> M.X,X>0, etc.). It just complicates things.

It seems to be the existing practice used in GCC for removing C++
extensions.  It should at least (a) allow for widely distributed and used
free software sources to be fixed if necessary before an extension gets
removed and (b) provide something to point to when the users you mention
complain that GCC has broken their software without warning :-).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk