fixincludes for glibc 'inline' non-C99 conformance

Joseph S. Myers
Sat Nov 4 04:08:00 GMT 2006

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Mike Stump wrote:

> the next year.  After we create the 4.3 release branch, I'd propose that we
> then make the decision to flip the switch default (or back the patch out, if
> there is no switch by then) for the release branch only, leaving mainline as
> it is.

I'd put the backout time sooner: flip the #ifdef if we don't have the new 
attribute and fixes for glibc by the end of Stage 1, but keep the default 
as is during Stage 1 (which is expected to be a time of major changes that 
may break things).  This of course presumes that any further issues found 
to need fixincludes are acted on promptly, as are any regressions that may 
be found in gnu89 mode.

I also strongly deprecate the lack of cooperation seen lately between GCC 
and GLIBC on both sides, both patches going in to GCC causing GLIBC 
breakage known in advance without a plan for fixing it and GLIBC 
developers failing to review for months patches needed for GCC.  I think 
the GNU project needs to consider how to move to cooperation so that 
developers of both these components of the GNU system bear in mind and act 
in accordance with responsibilities to the other component.

Joseph S. Myers

More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list