Re: C99? No, portability.
Doug Evans <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CADPb22SOsN11+WCHveay1JhUunc3wg=9zswTgsYCRmeX8ReAAg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Doug Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > The things that are unsupported seem pretty esoteric as far as gdb is concerned. > And at any rate, I'm sure we can find a useful subset. > I can imagine we did the same thing when we transitioned to C89 > (especially with respect to library support). > I can also imagine we're still avoiding things added in C89 (for > portability reasons), but I'm glad we transitioned. > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:26 AM, John Kearney <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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? As of 4.8 gcc requires c++ to build. ref: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html The compiler has (finally) moved on. Let's please not hold back gdb.