Eli Schwartz <eschwart...@gmail.com> writes: > Except this thread is not arguing to remove support for -std=c89 as far > as I can tell? > > The argument is that on newer values for -std (such as the one GCC > defaults to if no -std is specified), GCC should adapt its diagnostics > better for the std in question. These newer -stds should stop issuing a > warning diagnostic, and begin issuing an error diagnostic instead. > > The latter group most certainly does have somewhere to go other than > proprietary compilers -- it can go to GCC with -std=c89 (or -Wno-* or > -fpermissive or -fold-code or whatever the case may be). > > But I do not understand the comparison to -traditional. Which was > already removed, and already resulted in, apparently, at least one group > being so adamant on not-C that it switched to a proprietary compiler. > Okay, understood. But at this point that group is no longer users of > GCC... right?
Yes. > So what is the moral of this story? To avoid repeating the story of > -traditional, and instead make sure that users of -std=c89 always have a ^^^^^^ > flag they can use to indicate they are writing old c89 code? > > If so, then as far as I can tell, that was the original plan? The flag > already exists, even. And the original proposal was to provide another > flag that doesn't even restrict you to c89. And what will guarantee this ``always'' always remains true?