Convert 3.2 sources to ISO C90

[Robert Lipe]

> > No, what it really means is that some poor GCC developer gets stuck
> > doing this stuff.  HP certainly isn't going to do it.  So what it
> > really means is that *I* get stuck doing this crap.
>
> But getting back to ISO conversion, HP does have an ISO compiler - it
> just costs money.

In terms of the rocket science involved in the compiler, this is simply
not a problem that's Jeff-worthy.  Solving this problem needs someone
with access to a reasonable compiler and at least remedial shell
scripting abilities that can spin a binary release once in a while.

And if nobody steps forward to place even that much effort on HP-UX,
then can this whole HP-UX data point be optimized away and get back 
to the question of whether GCC can be written in a formally described
language?


RJL