This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: C99? No, portability.
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: John Gilmore <gnu at toad dot com>
- Cc: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, gdb <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:38:09 -0700
- Subject: Re: C99? No, portability.
- References: <87wqoqi5yf dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <201307162122 dot r6GLMlMx012078 at glazunov dot sibelius dot xs4all dot nl> <201307170811 dot r6H8BagN018382 at new dot toad dot com>
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?