From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Henderson <rth@cygnus.com>
To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>, zack@rabi.columbia.edu
Cc: craig@jcb-sc.com, alex.buell@tahallah.demon.co.uk, egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: i18n of egcs
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:15:00 -0000
Message-ID: <19990429131841.A4270@cygnus.com>
References: <199904282246.SAA29271@blastula.phys.columbia.edu> <199904290610.IAA00481@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
X-SW-Source: 1999-04n/msg01060.html
Message-ID: <19990430231500.P3x0whqsUG0ceVQQ9oag0B_3pp9V5_HbLLQ5LOiKXMs@z>

On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 08:10:42AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > What was wrong with -std=c89 or -std=iso9899:1990 ?
> 
> Nothing. I just question whether an -iso option is still justified, in
> the presence of these options.

I would really really prefer that we didn't add an `-iso' option.

The specs are quite ugly enough already having to handle `-ansi'
in addition to `-std=[!gnu]'.  I'd kill the `-ansi' option entirely
if I thought we could get away with it.


r~