DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I take it that all libiberty-using projects have taken the plunge, >> then? You vetoed this conversion awhile back because libiberty had >> to be done last. > > At this point, I think libiberty *is* the last.
I'm glad to hear it. It'll be nice to be completely done with this conversion. >> What's your opinion on dropping C89 library routines from libiberty? > > What would that buy us? I mean, aside from the obvious "less to > maintain" reason? 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. zw
