Drop the K&R requirement from binutils?

Alan Modra amodra@bigpond.net.au
Mon Aug 19 18:51:00 GMT 2002


On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 09:09:14PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 03:41:36PM -0400, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > 
> >> present in binutils-2.13.  So that last two binutils releases weren't K&R C.
> >> If nobody noticed that the code isn't K&R C, then why is it important to
> >> continue trying to use K&R C?
> > 
> > 
> > I think it's important _only_ if a maintainer steps forward and
> > commits to fixing the sort of bugs you noticed.  Do we have such a
> > person?  I don't think so.
> 
> [I think I understand your point]

To clarify:  Even if people notice K&R bugs, and complain loudly, but
no one is willing to spend the time to fix bugs, why should the burden
of supporting eg. HPUX fall to Nick?  Jeff hasn't even been willing
to put his name against HPPA in the maintainer's file!  To be fair,
that's not to say Jeff provides no support, but it's why I say we don't
have someone committed to fixing K&R bugs.

> and everyone elses time.   No one compiles BINUTILS using a K&R 
> compiler! :-)

That's probably not entirely true.  I suspect that anyone trying to
compile with a K&R compiler runs up against bugs, and decides that
it's easier to grab a copy of gcc than report and/or fix the problems.
Which of course is still a vote against K&R support being needed.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre



More information about the Binutils mailing list