On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > - -std=gnu89 (before merge/after/not ?) I fear that certain folks > will wince if we (we're well in 2010 at the time of this writing and > C99 is the dominating standard for the majority that i'm aware of) > drop it, yes?
I've been there. For awhile I was trapped at GCC 2.95.3 because further versions required an upgrade to a GLIBC version that was too bloated. It was really annoying, all the programs I had to patch because of programmers who use C++-style declarations-after-statements. Notably, GNU coreutils has been such a package for a long time now. But now, I've found uClibc and all is sweetness and light, with GCC 4.4.3. Thus, I think dropping support for C89 shouldn't be a problem, unless we are talking about some specific feature GCC added after declarations-after-statements-in-straight-C. Anyone who doesn't have this feature *knows* they have a problem. On a related note, dropping C89 support implies dropping support for all GCC 2.x versions, since their C99 support is deficient. So if you're going to break GCC 2 anyway, this offers a chance to simplify the headers by removing special cases for old GCC. ---- Michael Deutschmann <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
