Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 14:38:56 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: gclarkii@main.gbdata.com (Gary Clark II) Cc: terry@lambert.org, bde@zeta.org.au, jkh@time.cdrom.com, nadav@barcode.co.il, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /usr/include/ftpio.h is not C++ safe Message-ID: <199705062138.OAA19398@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199705061929.OAA06468@main.gbdata.com> from "Gary Clark II" at May 6, 97 02:29:54 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > What is our reason for having old code around? Is there a GOOD reason > > > why we are trying to support a non-ansi compiler? What is the chance that > > > FreeBSD will ever need to do this in real life? > > > > I don't know about you, but I have access to embedded systems that > > only have K&R compilers available. > > These compilers run under FreeBSD????? No. But I compile code from the FreeBSD source tree on these machines. > > I also have access to many older systems (like BTOS, CTOS, C-64, and > > old Altos and 8086 SCO systems) that simply can't support GCC on a bet. > > The same here? No, but I compile code from the FreeBSD source tree on these machines. > I have no problem creating a "port includes" or whatever, but I see no reason > to keep "OUR" includes in the darkages to support "OTHER" systems. > Anyone for a new sandbox?:) Doing __P() supports "OTHER" systems without damaging the ability to have prototypes in scope on "OUR" compilations. Also, I think you are forgetting that the reason for the UCB license on FreeBSD was so that people could take the code and do what they want with it, including compiling it on "OTHER" systems, not as part of a FreeBSD system. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705062138.OAA19398>