DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Less to maintain is all I was hoping for. I think the configure >> scripts (both libiberty's and gcc's) could be simplified quite a bit >> if we assumed a C89 compliant runtime library, as could libiberty.h >> and system.h. > > Well, gcc can make assumptions libiberty can't, and as far as > libiberty's configure goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" seems to > be the best course.
Fair enough. Particularly since I do not have current plans to do anything but speculate. Hands full with other stuff. > A target environment, for example, may use libiberty to *provide* c89 > support functions for its runtime library. Isn't that what newlib is for...? I should be clear, though; I only want to make this assumption for the host and build systems. zw
