Re: Drop the K&R requirement from binutils?

[Bob Wilson <bwilson at tensilica dot com>]

References: <m3d6sbuh7p.fsf@north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com>

Nick Clifton wrote:
>   After reading all of the emails posted on this subject here is what
>   I am proposing we should do:
> [ text deleted ]
>     2. Allow the limited use of ISO C features in the mainline
>        binutils sources (and releases after 2.13).  Specifically ISO
>        would only be allowed in target specific files, not generic
>        files.  (Obviously this would exclude any HP/UX targeted
>        files).
>
>        I can see people objecting to this idea on the grounds that
>        mixing source dialects would be confusing and goes against the
>        of having a uniform coding standard and style.  So I am opening
>        to suggestions as to whether this is actually a good idea.

I didn't see any comments on this proposal, and I have a personal interest.  I'm 
working on cleaning up our binutils port for Xtensa processors so that we can 
contribute it.  This port includes some Xtensa-specific files in bfd that 
currently use ISO C prototypes.  I really don't want to have to change them to 
use ansidecl.h and PARAMS macros, especially since versions of these same files 
are also used outside binutils.

Since I didn't see any objections on the mailing list, can I assume that these 
ISO C prototypes are OK?