Re: Drop the K&R requirement from binutils?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:32:31PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>Jim Wilson <wilson@redhat.com> writes:
>>>Only a very small and very vocal minority of gcc developers believe
>>>that continuing to require K&R C for gcc serves any useful purpose.  At
>>>the moment, this minority is enough to paralyze the gcc decision making
>>>process.  It would help move things along if binutils switched to ISO
>>>C90, as then there would be less of a reason for gcc to continue using
>>>K&R C.
>>
>>I've always sort of felt that since gcc is the much larger project, the
>>binutils should wait to switch to ISO C90 until gcc switches.
>
>Is it reasonable to delay BINUTILS conversion when it serves no useful
>purpose other than to pacify a very small but very vocal minority of
>GCC developers?
>
>GDB, for instance, gave up waiting three years ago.  Hmm, yes, now that
>is scary! It's over three years since GDB abandoned K&R C.
>http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/1999-q2/msg00024.html

If it is just HP that is causing the problem, couldn't we just host a
set of HP tools on gcc.gnu.org, appropriate for bootstrapping gcc?

Hmm.  Deja vu.  This has probably been suggested before ad nauseum.

cgf