Po Lu via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > Eli Schwartz <eschwart...@gmail.com> writes: > >> This discussion thread is about having very good technical reasons -- as >> explained multiple times, including instances where you agreed that the >> technical reasons were good. >> >> Furthermore, even despite those technical reasons, GCC is *still* >> committed to not breaking those old programs anyway. GCC merely wants to >> make those old programs have to be compiled in an "old-programs" mode. >> >> Can you explain to me how you think this goal conflicts with your goal? > > Because now people will have to go through dozens and dozens of > Makefiles, configure.in, *.m4, just because GCC made a decision that > results in everyone inserting: > > extern int foo (); > > above what used to be implicit function declarations?
I've seen 0 instances of this. All of the fixes we've made have been proper and all the fixes I've seen when I report but don't fix an issue have been proper. We wouldn't have proposed this if that was the case. Maybe you should take your case to the C committee that removed the feature in the first place and tell them to reinstate it because of.. ^
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
