Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:40:07 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@coosemans.org>, freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: c89 broken on head? Message-ID: <717866F5-8CF6-4E2F-A1C4-BFC894D4D680@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxg=TdfXkkDd7CCnQdo0qEb7kLjh0YLiwnZgb6VL5Q_uCzQ@mail.gmail.com> 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> <CAF6rxg=TdfXkkDd7CCnQdo0qEb7kLjh0YLiwnZgb6VL5Q_uCzQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 7, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 7 March 2013 18:03, Tijl Coosemans <tijl@coosemans.org> 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=3Dc11. >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>=20 >> My argument was to be practical, i.e. don't change what doesn't have = to >> change. >>=20 >>> -std=3Dc11 is defintely too new, but maybe c89 is too old. >>>=20 >>> I thought the c89 program actually was mandated by POSIX, no? >>=20 >> 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 >>=20 >> So, if practicality isn't a good enough argument, maybe POSIX = compliance >> is? >=20 > 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. >=20 > If we are to remove it or change it, I would like to see that preceded > by an exp-run. Removing cc is an exceedingly stupid idea. I think it should be preceded = by the heat death of the universe. It will cause nothing but gratuitous = pain and suffering for our users and gain us absolutely nothing in = return. Do not even think about removing 'cc,' let alone trying to do an = exp-run. The idea is a non-starter and you'd be wasting your time. Warner=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?717866F5-8CF6-4E2F-A1C4-BFC894D4D680>