From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 8 03:08:36 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0455748 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 03:08:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@eitanadler.com) Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com (mail-wg0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F5835A for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 03:08:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id 12so1993835wgh.19 for ; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:08:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=KYu1TvZSmKHwqzHqxx/Qodbim2ad4l8P7W0k3JVKBIA=; b=Yq1agItcLuhf+yjgAN41kpM+DtscirExhI2jtKrkqQgRKIJAvMjNtS+R5vv7SWhS44 GhHTTHZ8XvksD6WkwMOq1XyJcr08YN0GzjMK/4rgCv48EAYl694nEVjK6YqzzcrAb8zs Hy4Tzxocj2cjMd1ZhzhD3X7E9dBsf2PJXLt6U= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=KYu1TvZSmKHwqzHqxx/Qodbim2ad4l8P7W0k3JVKBIA=; b=mJDM9LZwsrxTpOhXPr+mD64Mswk4wwdM1bx/9IjAK399EOHpxNcbhwX2g+WWQAROks Tz9Ep1ZveLbjt/tIUBEIhrKnKfMd+X/herdqla8k91AUYhCdCk2ARg9NyoPVkcUlq2vy SCyJ7O2l2npuUgJmr7dYBbDB3dJ1PIgOBl9AoLaEgWr16BliBjfkpu9GneC1Lu6sqHhP y68YK/Isbzt+ZXTL7gsnLk4ZYbDrpR0tdZcisdZZGauwIT5jpWnzfI4ApUCVnwdnX0s9 TEmhthrtXXYmDlix2GfDO2Ewy9qk8yKyjpO9oJgbRu0k5KRcR81bIhOKkvoaQiLdToJi eAbw== X-Received: by 10.180.81.164 with SMTP id b4mr903040wiy.34.1362712109340; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:08:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.179.194 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:07:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <51391CC1.5050200@coosemans.org> References: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> <5138F6EF.6020203@coosemans.org> <51390682.3020703@FreeBSD.org> <48120A0D-8A96-4D62-9C17-AE40E1DEF026@bsdimp.com> <51391CC1.5050200@coosemans.org> From: Eitan Adler Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:07:59 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: c89 broken on head? To: Tijl Coosemans Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmrmsdtsrNndBFS6ta/eR8AT53b6GYQf+BhkYalrT1nBrMz8ZhEr9dUT9ih3P8G3xGSvvah Cc: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 03:08:36 -0000 On 7 March 2013 18:03, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On 2013-03-07 22:36, Warner Losh wrote: >> On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: >>> On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >>> ... >>>> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly >>>> be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can be >>>> expected to add -std=c11. >>> >>> I am not sure I buy that argument; if it were so, we should default to >>> K&R C instead, since "old code" (for some arbitrary definition of "old") >>> could never have been expected to know about gcc defaulting to gnu89. > > My argument was to be practical, i.e. don't change what doesn't have to > change. > >> -std=c11 is defintely too new, but maybe c89 is too old. >> >> I thought the c89 program actually was mandated by POSIX, no? > > Both were part of POSIX. c89 was a strict ISO c89 compiler, while cc was > c89, but could additionally accept "an unspecified dialect of the C > language". http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/cc.html > > So, if practicality isn't a good enough argument, maybe POSIX compliance > is? cc is marked as "LEGACY" which is described as optional ("need not be provided"). However, I would not be surprised if a non-zero number of ports depend on cc existing. If we are to remove it or change it, I would like to see that preceded by an exp-run. -- Eitan Adler