From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-42361-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7912 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2013 22:38:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 7883 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jul 2013 22:38:18 -0000
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-ie0-f173.google.com) (209.85.223.173)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:38:17 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id k13so5477271iea.32        for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:38:09 -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-gm-message-state;        bh=9kwmrro/ZAwIQnMXMJlPptty99TaFyxa//qlwbbCfew=;        b=Uig0T8Uw/Q+pM51/ULGHo42/vIWun73CwLSy8zv8gbAXo/0a8V6P+T98dJCu2N/zNf         KDBAK8GwisZQx9OCYEVNWBqdLJv8GUIReHrE6W1N5mJJLWn7TXjgKnSlxTYqhGpkvKV0         K41I3+JLfk3UQKzO10r/q2sFOQtgTRb22pjKa1skTEU4uiN45Uk8vZOfbQHVPlf66wSU         j3fKEqsBvOPSdKMnB/DGGqQ/JYohZGHEDBWVp1fPWNIg2O96co+rvXb0S3d5uVxZMMO+         eM6wDNTCbbkylG0YvIGoy1dfeblLr2EfbC5gqtBw1WsZQTM381Lqi5xeWrYpzAzrPR/P         btKw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.7.1 with SMTP id f1mr2040237iga.48.1374100689620; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.62.67 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201307170811.r6H8BagN018382@new.toad.com>
References: <87wqoqi5yf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<201307162122.r6GLMlMx012078@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>	<201307170811.r6H8BagN018382@new.toad.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:38:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CADPb22RucqKtyGhFG6z50ycaoYepwa+9HG_ejbK0Yg1OQTFtfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: C99? No, portability.
From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
To: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
Cc: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnVWqfGwVo8j9Tini3gI8IGamtTMHMplkOv9z6xXLoHs/+Pn8SzW4c01JSbcUuELBPpmeXWRcQwq1mYjNJurSzMbKPvJVcuQ0ex/Z0XSVN8skXSg5qh0sj9cNEodJpCLKZvnbM+gporarjrjFweX4MZ8QpR3i4vCG7LFa8N1H5/c+c1s4wA5qvbBhOyqhwIBfTeyFHP
X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:11 AM, John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
>
> Mark said it correctly.  This change would "require" a C99 compiler.
> Not just "allow the use of C99 in GDB".
>
> I recommend that you NOT break compatability with older compilers for
> gratuitous reasons.  For example, I still run systems based on Red Hat
> 7.3, which use gcc-2.96.  I can still compile modern GDB's on that
> system.  (With the few portability patches below :-).)

gdb successfully moved from K&R to C89, so it's not like we haven't
been through this before.

C99 is 14 years old.  How many people still require C89 vs how many
have long since moved on?