Re: Converting to ISO C89

["Mark Mitchell" <mark@codesourcery.com>]

Good point.

Given that, I'd prefer not to see ISO C89 patches making their way into the
3.3 branch.  That seems like more disruption than we need at this point.

Thanks,

-- Mark

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: "Mark Mitchell" <mark@codesourcery.com>
Cc: "Andrew Haley" <aph@redhat.com>; <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: Converting to ISO C89


> Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
> | On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 07:25, Andrew Haley wrote:
> | > Mark Mitchell writes:
> | >  >
> | >  > The SC has finally finished voting on ISO C89 conversion.  (The
> | >  > mailing list for the SC experienced some problems, which caused
things
> | >  > to bog down a bit.)
> | >  >
> | >  > The verdict is in: it is OK to assume ISO C89 in all code in GCC
> | >  > proper.  (In other words, libiberty and/or other libraries are not
> | >  > affected.)
> | >  >
> | >  > So, patches to do ISO C conversions on the mainline are hereby
> | >  > pre-approved with one caveat: I would appreciate it if people would
> | >  > wait until GCC 3.3 is out the door.  The reason is that we're still
> | >  > applying a lot of patches to both branches, and that process is
tricky
> | >  > enough without creating a lot of spurious merge conflicts.
> | >
> | > I take it that new patches which are written in ISO C may be applied
> | > to the 3.3 branch.
> |
> | I can't see why not.
>
> That means that you would also have to OK the patch
>
>    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-03/msg01765.html
>
> for gcc-3_3-branch.
>
> -- Gaby
>