This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
> > > I don't understand. Gcc can happily mix K&R code and ISO code. Using > > the -traditional flag of gcc already does not work so this is no > > additional restriction. > > That is what I said. We are in agreement. > > > The only program needed for bootstrapping which takes code from glibc > > is make. For fnmatch/glob we can either leave them as is or use > > ansi2knr or unprotoize. The latter is what many GNU packages do > > nowadays. > > Though I guess it is not a priority for GNU, I would like to leave the > decisions of how portable to what systems each package needs to be to the > discretion of that package's maintainer. If using ansi2knr or unprotoize > is sufficient, then all the better. I'd just like to give the maintainers > a chance to explicitly respond to your proposal before just deciding for them. I already did, when I brought the point to U.D., regex.[ch] is use in many packages and will not compile without an ANSI C. I'm a bit worry that next time I'll look, it will need not only an ANSI C comp. but gcc. Of course I can not impose my views on the course of glibc, and I certainly can understand U.D. not to want to carry those extra wait any longer. Maybe it's time for a scission, in any case I(and many other maintainers) did benefice from the general improvements made in this forum. -- au revoir, alain ---- Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on n'est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |