From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14907 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2013 17:39:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 14849 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jul 2013 17:39:33 -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-f175.google.com) (209.85.223.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:39:32 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id a11so10039388iee.34 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:39:24 -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=Kk43mGN38/dL1O6Lx5GYUk4+su8SPVB1/IF8jl/ELLM=; b=ChpeFjlt4QibYlhJZpycwiH//aG7OBdnGgq+VG0LrZWuRwa99BwR2A9Kp6gUN6VaDf xUzOY8BQOtPhP/4nfN14KKb0S6xVZnoYOqRav41UlGc5EPgFNEDfRX6wRRrZAKH4yEkg wF0R1BDY8GkJOGN44dKqrzr/ISBZFaujoUtikE86oT/Fv7lzx+066L9j7NBe0qvLJnWE fiOBRUfDg9d6YqjKKalOeDSQ414/KmwEtLRnHCV4gveHQYglUE7CEDE5TMddP6rUdLyH 4isBI9oXW9klr3t3nA1uYUYdTuPrU38A25oC8q7meLPNDL+x9QNKaUsCaVWh1Tm6iTtt aguw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.152.210 with SMTP id kx18mr11596811icc.39.1374255564841; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:39:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.62.67 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:39:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87wqoqi5yf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201307162122.r6GLMlMx012078@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <201307170811.r6H8BagN018382@new.toad.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: C99? No, portability. From: Doug Evans To: John Kearney Cc: John Gilmore , Mark Kettenis , Tom Tromey , gdb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnmLgV8GDcSo7KmPp2VA9IW6mOK96uSaN8l3xVt87fK090KwTcz6epJ+GZ6DYRODL6KC3e6+HelfUrBsuAkPAc4sOS1H+ZggPEkuztUDdWIexiQdly3mdnoDZj8Z22D8tx0d7t3Yx4oy9Fnmpi2JtHelPjFwCfaIomiMqOExWTtEN/af1g5IA8urGo2UQoevAzdp+/a X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 The things that are unsupported seem pretty esoteric as far as gdb is concerned. And at any rate, I'm sure we can find a useful subset. I can imagine we did the same thing when we transitioned to C89 (especially with respect to library support). I can also imagine we're still avoiding things added in C89 (for portability reasons), but I'm glad we transitioned. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:26 AM, John Kearney wrote: > Well c99 may be 14 years old but it still isn't fully supported. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gdb-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Doug Evans > Sent: Donnerstag, 18. Juli 2013 00:38 > To: John Gilmore > Cc: Mark Kettenis; Tom Tromey; gdb > Subject: Re: C99? No, portability. > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:11 AM, John Gilmore 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?