Convert 3.2 sources to ISO C90

[Robert Lipe]

Neil Booth wrote:

> Or are [hp] effectively going to hold up this "progress" in GCC hostage
> forever?

We've been pretty intolerant about supporting other "broken" vendor
compilers for years.  The only proposed change in policy is to start
considering a dead dialect (of a language that's been formally specified
twice) to be "broken".  K&R has all kinds of rules that just plain
aren't well known to a generation of programmers these days.  It does
obscure the code.

Whether HP hosts a site of binaries or not shouldn't even be a question.
Anybody that cares about HP-UX can put up a binary kit, right?  Two such
sites are referenced from gcc.gnu.org.

RJL