RE: C99? No, portability.
John Kearney <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Well c99 may be 14 years old but it still isn't fully supported. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Doug Evans Sent: Donnerstag, 18. Juli 2013 00:38 To: John Gilmore Cc: Mark Kettenis; Tom Tromey; gdb Subject: 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?