From owner-freebsd-commit  Mon Sep 11 16:44:25 1995
Return-Path: commit-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA11752
          for freebsd-commit-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 16:44:25 -0700
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA11739
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 16:44:23 -0700
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA11726
          for cvs-sys-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 16:44:22 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA11716
          ; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 16:44:13 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA06086; Mon, 11 Sep 1995 15:53:04 -0700
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>
cc: pst@shockwave.com, bde@freefall.freebsd.org,
        CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern vnode_if.sh 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Sep 1995 15:45:53 PDT."
             <199509112245.PAA02175@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> 
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 15:53:03 -0700
Message-ID: <6080.810859983@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: commit-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > 
> > > Maybe it's time to ask the general question:
> > > 
> > > 	Why do we care about non-ansi compilers?
> > 
> > Roll back the clock about 2 years and you'll find a similar thread, except
> > it was me saying "Why do we care about non-ansi compilers?" that time
> > and Terry on the other end arguing passionately for K&R compatability
> > just in case we decided to do that long awated 6809 port of FreeBSD
> > and were stuck with pcc or something as the only available compiler.
> > 
> > I say fiddlesticks - we should go to full c++ style prototypes and obey
> > only those sylististic conventions necessary to making things like `ctags'
> > work.  That's about as far as I think it's necessary to go with
> > "backwards compatability" in source code.
> 
> Then you have not thought about the facts that the BSD source code
> base is used in other OS's that do _not_ have a fully ansi compliant
> compiler and are not going to be getting one any day soon.

Oh, I've thought about it, I simply just don't CARE about those
other operating systems.. :-)

					Jordan

P.S. Myself, I'd have already ported gcc to that Domain/IX system long
ago or have donated it to the poor if such just simply wasn't an
option.. :)