From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5069 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2012 19:59:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 5061 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jun 2012 19:59:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f169.google.com) (209.85.220.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:59:34 +0000 Received: by vcbfl10 with SMTP id fl10so2748141vcb.0 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:59:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=9Dqx/lyjVzJnmW8w7kFlRRqhE5wTL2XKU40QbuAIm2s=; b=KAUDKue5wD0ltX/ShSsRFyVpPLGFD0E+Lj3cveB940DllGc5gXq0glG5psyaXCcmI8 vtZBL5QxBtoQOVCSGjqSQaQhFMAHqVwWFF8O5Po9Ik1P9pGMX4crMKaFs9/Xk247xdnq qCBk4JA2P63wNCZ+Bdbr8zdugkZ3lXO3wVuMuhpn9HZVIBHfiDPN1Iws55dkh3Jq8NfC i5TzTJ5r5ca2ViedJEpkPvOaCHbhE5xmXKaG1DBm6Rw2ZIM5tpw3yK/Lr6SwZ4wxr131 K+h9ZvwZFBgrN82Ky0WIvUeFpUW3/rCyUWk/6kdGQHXKLBXwLprcNRW0+ksmliEvVUzR t/kg== Received: by 10.52.23.162 with SMTP id n2mr6418923vdf.59.1340654374046; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:59:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.23.162 with SMTP id n2mr6418905vdf.59.1340654373806; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.26.132 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:59:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120622190228.GM2799@adacore.com> References: <4fbc9d77.0853b40a.641e.ffff90dbSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <87bold8l4d.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201205282043.q4SKhksB010254@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <87ipejib8o.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120622171922.GK2799@adacore.com> <20120622173049.GL2799@adacore.com> <877guzgs7r.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120622190228.GM2799@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: New ARI warning Wed May 23 01:55:03 UTC 2012 From: Doug Evans To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Tom Tromey , Mark Kettenis , pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmrnf9QpxWQoi1K3f644n1UYhXt8gmOOe1KyMqZigikp/dAfoB+JWOUZlXCSOSfQsMkq0umVP8T362FAZyGj9dH+OGYhG36Bz9B1m1jyU2VHYRzAlWy5488vt+mihTXTqpO5Zy0lMdSSCr+mFtN4PuVzKaJA6g2SMVTY0+wmiOeqVHQxZck9DEXrhVqslir63W/i/Dk X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-06/txt/msg00780.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> Tom Tromey wrote: >> How about we flip the switch to C99 for 7.6? > > Sounds good to me. Do we want to be exclusive, rather than inclusive? > In other words, say: The following C99 constructs are allowed, and > maintain that list, rather that allow all of C99, and then list > the features not allowed. I understand that some features are still > not implemented (or portable?). Which would be easier? It feels like listing the allowed constructs would work best. [We can still add text to list/discuss what's disallowed, but separately.]