> 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. I admit that cleaning up the includes intrigues me, but I also hesitate to change that without completely understanding the OSs we still need to support. A target environment, for example, may use libiberty to *provide* c89 support functions for its runtime library.
