Drop the K&R requirement from binutils?
Mon Aug 19 09:17:00 GMT 2002
> Andrew Cagney <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
That would make for a logical decision with a clear rationale (GDB keeps
old versions around for this purpose).
More information about the Binutils