From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9716 invoked by alias); 29 May 2012 13:29:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 9667 invoked by uid 22791); 29 May 2012 13:28:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 May 2012 13:28:38 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1SZMTT-00017Y-35 from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Tue, 29 May 2012 06:28:35 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 29 May 2012 06:28:34 -0700 Received: from [172.30.0.129] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Tue, 29 May 2012 14:28:32 +0100 Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:29:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Mark Kettenis CC: Tom Tromey , , , Subject: Re: New ARI warning Wed May 23 01:55:03 UTC 2012 In-Reply-To: <201205282043.q4SKhksB010254@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: References: <20120523015503.GA25312@sourceware.org> <4fbc9d77.0853b40a.641e.ffff90dbSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <87bold8l4d.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201205282043.q4SKhksB010254@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 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/msg01014.txt.bz2 On Mon, 28 May 2012, Mark Kettenis wrote: > 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. Interesting, I found GCC 4.1.2 working reasonably well for the VAX target, other versions are probably OK too -- why did OpenBSD stick to such an old version for that target? Anyway, I reckon GCC used to support long long even before that, although there might have been issues. > So I'd have no objection to requiring C99, 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. FWIW, I concur. I find them confusing and easy to avoid. Maciej