> Unfortunately, we do not have the source code for our compiler. Would > you care to ask people here to restore `gcc -traditional'?
This would appear to be a self-inflicted wound. If I understand the chain of events properly... - gcc drops support for -traditional - you wish to use code that does the badness - you purchase a proprietary compiler that permits it anyway - to avoid making it produce invalid results, you hack your linker You'd rather hack your compiler, but you cannot do it because you purchased a proprietary compiler and didn't purchase the rights to its source code. (BTW, there's a FOSS compiler that you can hack on if you like.) That's all fine and well, you do you. What I do not understand is, two things. First of all, why are you calling this "traditional C"? It is not "traditional C". It isn't C. It is not-C. Second of all, why is this GCC's problem? You are not a user of GCC, apparently. Moreover, this discussion is not about -traditional! It's about implicit-function-declaration. And implicit-function-declaration does not have the same problem as -traditional, because implicit-function-declaration ***WILL*** have a flag that permits people who are users of GCC, and just want implicit-function-declaration back. So you have exactly what you want out of this conversation. We concede. C type errors by default will come with a flag to disable them. -- Eli Schwartz
