From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6488 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2004 21:10:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6471 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2004 21:10:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Jun 2004 21:10:17 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA11317; Tue, 22 Jun 04 17:11:49 EDT Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:05:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10406222111.AA11317@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: nathan@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: Patch to allow Ada to work with tree-ssa Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg01807.txt.bz2 so it's an accident then? why not just remove it? I'm not at all convinced it's an "accident". The GNU C extensions were never documented, but that doesn't mean that nobody used them. The code I showed is just a logical consequence of the existance of those extensions. I've certainly known that it will work for quite some time, perhaps as long as 20 years. There's no way to know how much code that depends on this is out there. I'll repeat now what I said a few weeks ago: it's precisely because of these things already being in GCC that the GNAT project chose GCC to use as a backend. In any event, there's no reason to remove this since we can easily support it.