From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-87781-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 17270 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2012 18:56:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 17261 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2012 18:56:03 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:55:41 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LZ500G00320OF00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:55:37 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.149.156]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LZ500GV638ON730@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:55:37 +0200 (IST)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:56:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [no-commit-intention] Naive unnamed fields for main_type  [Re: [patch] Fix gdb-gdb.py for flds_bnds copy-pastes]
In-reply-to: <20120209153642.GA12261@host2.jankratochvil.net>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83k43valap.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20120209092727.GA2664@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120209093119.GA2722@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120209151621.GB3474@adacore.com> <20120209153642.GA12261@host2.jankratochvil.net>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
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/msg00153.txt.bz2

> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:36:42 +0100
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:16:21 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > Personally, I don't know what the obstacles are for switching to C99
> > (technical, FSF policy?).
> 
> I do not see anything even close to C90 compatibility, there are tons of
> errors with `gcc -std=c90 -pedantic', `sort -u' of them below.

Even so, there's a difference between allowing several popular
extensions to C90 and _requiring_ C99.