Eli Schwartz <eschwart...@gmail.com> writes: >> Unfortunately, we do not have the source code for our compiler. Would >> you care to ask people here to restore `gcc -traditional'? > > > This would appear to be a self-inflicted wound. If I understand the > chain of events properly...
The chain of events actually is: - The code was originally written for the BSD Unix cc. - Eventually, it started to be built with GCC, with -traditional. - GCC removes -traditional. - We are forced to find another C comppiler. Note that I wasn't where I am when this started, so everything above is second hand knowledge. And finally, this: > - to avoid making it produce invalid results, you hack your linker Which is essentially link-time lint, and not related to the subject at hand. I only mentioned it to make a point, which is that people writing traditional C in this day and age are unlikely to make any mistakes doing so. > You'd rather hack your compiler, but you cannot do it because you > purchased a proprietary compiler and didn't purchase the rights to its > source code. > > (BTW, there's a FOSS compiler that you can hack on if you like.) Which sadly does not support the code which we need to compile. Clearly, turning GCC into a K&R compiler is not a very welcome idea around here, so why would we hack on it? > That's all fine and well, you do you. What I do not understand is, two > things. > > First of all, why are you calling this "traditional C"? It is not > "traditional C". It isn't C. It is not-C. When the file names for the source files end with `.c' and `.h', and the compiler is named `cc' and `acomp', it is C. It just isn't Standard C. > Second of all, why is this GCC's problem? You are not a user of GCC, > apparently. Because decisions arbitrarily made on GCC's part will simply result in even more people deciding to find some other compiler. The point being that people sufficiently dedicated to their existing code to not have changed in over 30 years will not respond to such changes by changing their code. They are much more likely to look for some other compiler instead. > And implicit-function-declaration does not have the same problem as > -traditional, because implicit-function-declaration ***WILL*** have a > flag that permits people who are users of GCC, and just want > implicit-function-declaration back. And remember that `-traditional' DID exist for a certain amount of time. Then it was removed. So in addition to annoying a lot of people, what guarantees that -Wno-implicit will not be removed in the future, after the proposed changes are made?
