Re: ${COMPILER_VERSION} < 40300

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 11:22:51AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 5/7/20 10:17 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:38 AM Eric van Gyzen <eric_at_vangyzen.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> If I were to clean up obsolete ${COMPILER_VERSION} tests in the tree,
> >> which ones should I keep?  I would probably confine it to head, so I
> >> could prune quite a few.
> >>
> > 
> > Anything in the bootstrap path should remain, especially in the install
> > portion of the bootstrap path since we don't require new compilers for
> > that. I doubt there's more than one or two of these and there may be zero.
> > The rest can go away.
> > 
> > We should also look at taking out the fmake workarounds in the tree too.
> > Most of these are in src/Makefile and src/Makefile.inc.
> 
> I think Eric though was asking about <sys/cdefs.h> and the like.  Right now
> we still have conditional support for some really old compilers that are
> likely to never be used with FreeBSD 13 (ancient Intel icc, gcc 2.95, etc.).
> 
> Like, do we keep support for pre-ANSI C to delete 'const' etc. via
> macros?   Admittedly there isn't a tremendous amount of cruft in cdefs.h.
> What would seem more invasive would be to do things like require C99 and
> use 'restrict' directly instead of __restrict, but the first step towards
> any of that is probably to remove some of the cruft from cdefs.h and
> possibly some other places.
I think __restrict still needs to be around, due to C++ not supporting
the keyword.

Actually there is more urgent need to add some bits to cdefs.h, like
c17 and newer POSIX_C_SOURCE.

> 
> (BTW, it would be good to know if it's at all useful to keep any of the
> icc bits around.)
> 
> -- 
> John Baldwin
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"