Re: C99

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:51:36 -0600
> 
> I'd like to draw attention to this patch:
> 
>     http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-06/msg00808.html
> 
> This points out that gdb has been unconditionally using a GCC extension,
> apparently since at least 2010; the patch introducing the varargs define
> in tracepoint.c was 7c56ce7 (2010-04-09).
> 
> The patch proposes replacing this with the corresponding C99 construct.
> 
> So, I'd like to propose we allow the use of C99 in gdb.  In particular I
> think we ought to require a C99 preprocessor -- enabling this particular
> patch to go in and also allowing the use of "//" comments.

Perhaps it is time to move on and start requiring a C99 compiler for GDB.
But "//" comments are offensive to real C programmers! ;)

Seriously though.  This points out that such a switch has some
consequences for our coding standards.  We have a fairly consistent
coding style in GDB, which makes it easy for people to move around in
the codebase without getting distracted by the "looks" of the code.  I
think it's worth some effort to keep it that way.  And allowing "//"
comments isn't going to help.  I'd vote for not using them at all.

However, a more important C99 "misfeature" that affects the coding
standard is the possibility to declare varaibles anywhere in the code.
We should not allow this, except for declaring loop variables in a
for() statement.