From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22779 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2013 15:27:23 -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 22765 invoked by uid 89); 18 Jul 2013 15:27:23 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RDNS_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO na3sys009aog133.obsmtp.com) (74.125.149.82) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:27:21 +0000 Received: from mx20.qnx.com ([72.1.200.103]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob133.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUegJQ026mo7YVxEgQ0236EsWNaiVtu5t@postini.com; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:27:21 PDT Received: by mx20.qnx.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id A1FAA2119D; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exhts.ott.qnx.com (exch1 [10.222.2.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx20.qnx.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EE2E21121; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EXMBX4.ott.qnx.com ([fe80::bd7a:5d16:2362:5d20]) by EXCH1.ott.qnx.com ([fe80::ad2c:c131:6ab:8bc9%19]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:26:57 -0400 From: John Kearney To: Doug Evans , John Gilmore CC: Mark Kettenis , Tom Tromey , gdb Subject: RE: C99? No, portability. Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <87wqoqi5yf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201307162122.r6GLMlMx012078@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <201307170811.r6H8BagN018382@new.toad.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 Well c99 may be 14 years old but it still isn't fully supported. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99=20 -----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=20 >> > particular I think we ought to require a C99 preprocessor --=20 >> > 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=20 > gratuitous reasons. For example, I still run systems based on Red Hat=20 > 7.3, which use gcc-2.96. I can still compile modern GDB's on that=20 > system. (With the few portability patches below :-).) gdb successfully moved from K&R to C89, so it's not like we haven't been th= rough this before. C99 is 14 years old. How many people still require C89 vs how many have lo= ng since moved on?