From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-87858-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 23929 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2012 10:20:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 23912 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Feb 2012 10:20:29 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:20:17 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1])	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1CAJq4L017383;	Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:19:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id q1CAJoQw025308;	Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:19:50 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:20:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201202121019.q1CAJoQw025308@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: tromey@redhat.com
CC: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com,        gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <87y5saa3zs.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (message from Tom Tromey on	Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:21:43 -0700)
Subject: Re: [no-commit-intention] Naive unnamed fields for main_type  [Re: [patch] Fix gdb-gdb.py for flds_bnds copy-pastes]
References: <20120209092727.GA2664@host2.jankratochvil.net>	<20120209093119.GA2722@host2.jankratochvil.net>	<20120209151621.GB3474@adacore.com>	<20120209153642.GA12261@host2.jankratochvil.net>	<874nuyef9c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<20120210190102.GA9186@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87y5saa3zs.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg00230.txt.bz2

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:21:43 -0700
> 
> >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> Jan> `long long' is apparently not supported by ISO C90 compilers, so it
> Jan> is a bug if GDB claims C90 compatibility.  Or what do you mean?
> 
> I mean that this is clearly a C90 violation.
> 
> Another question is whether some compilers accept parts of C99 but not
> all of it.

Quite a few compilers do.  For example, 'long long' was a popular
extension adopted by many vendors even before C99 was ratified.

On OpenBSD we still have some platforms stuck with GCC 2.95.  It
already includes quite a bit of C99 functionality, but some bits are
missing.  The most important one is that it doesn't allow declarations
after statements.  But I (and many C programmers with me) consider
that to be bad style and a C99 misfeature anyway.