Re: C99? No, portability.

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:11 AM, John Gilmore <[email protected]> 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?