From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6365 invoked by alias); 28 May 2012 21:59:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 6356 invoked by uid 22791); 28 May 2012 21:59:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 May 2012 21:59:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D481C6EE7; Mon, 28 May 2012 17:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id vNqF7TeE+it4; Mon, 28 May 2012 17:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E4C1C6879; Mon, 28 May 2012 17:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 72B1F145616; Mon, 28 May 2012 14:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 21:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: tromey@redhat.com, dje@google.com, pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New ARI warning Wed May 23 01:55:03 UTC 2012 Message-ID: <20120528215927.GK5492@adacore.com> References: <20120523015503.GA25312@sourceware.org> <4fbc9d77.0853b40a.641e.ffff90dbSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <87bold8l4d.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201205282043.q4SKhksB010254@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201205282043.q4SKhksB010254@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg01009.txt.bz2 > OpenBSD/vax, OpenBSD/m68k and OpenBSD/m88k are still stuck with GCC > 2.95, which is almost, but not quite C99. However, it's been ages > since I've last built GDB on any of those platforms. So it's probably > time to stop caring about those platforms. I fear that GDB has become > too bloated to be able to build it a typical machine that runs these > specific OpenBSD versions. But even GCC 2.95 supports long long as an > extension to C90. > > So I'd have no objection to requiring C99 Instead of unilaterally allowing C99, can we instead explicitly define which parts of C99 we allow, and list them specifically? > , except for one > style-related issue. I really, really hate mixing declarations with > code (something that C99 started to allow). So if we switch to > requiring C99, I think we should add a rule to the coding standards > that variables may only be declared at the start of a block. I agree with this recommendation. -- Joel