Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts)

[Bruce Korb]

Tim Mooney wrote:

> Something similar to what's done on page 147 (section 6.7) of K&R2e --

K&R2e == ANSI

> Of course, most of the functions still use the K&R style arg definitions.

K&R1e.

> Maybe it should be switched to using ANSI only, and people should be advised
> to use `ansi2knr' if they need to compile libtool with a pre-ANSI compiler.
> This may not sit well with the gcc people, as we may get into a
> chicken-or-the-egg problem there.  I don't know.

At some point, even the GCC folks will have to accept the fact that
K&R1e is a hobbiest-only anacronsism.  Anyone devoted to supporting
a box without an ANSI compiler for bootstrapping is, perforce, a
hobbiest.  I don't think squandering developer time for supporting
zero-gain platforms is a prudent use of resources.  They are not
"free", even if the open source community does not pay actual money.
It is, instead, a lost opportunity cost.