Drop the K&R requirement from binutils?

Ian Lance Taylor ian@airs.com
Mon Aug 19 05:39:00 GMT 2002

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com> writes:

> > I've always sort of felt that since gcc is the much larger project,
> > the binutils should wait to switch to ISO C90 until gcc switches.
> Is it reasonable to delay BINUTILS conversion when it serves no useful
> purpose other than to pacify a very small but very vocal minority of
> GCC developers?

The most significant use of the binutils (though not the only one) is
to serve as a backend for gcc.  Therefore, I think the binutils and
gcc should convert to ISO C90 at the same time.  Since the gcc project
is significantly larger, I think the gcc project should make the
determination of when to switch.

I don't think the binutils project should become a political tool as
part of an argument within the gcc project.  That makes no sense.

If I were to make decisions for gcc, I would declare that for the
foreseeable future all gcc compilers must compile with gcc 3.2.x.  I
would then commit to maintaining gcc 3.2.x for all systems which do
not have an included non-ISO C90 compiler.  This would permit a
pre-stage for the bootstrap step of gcc on unusual systems.


More information about the Binutils mailing list