Jason Thorpe writes:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 1996 15:08:09 -0500 
>  "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> wrote:
> 
>  > > I had to fix or hack around at least 2 "serious" gcc bugs when i got
>  > > started making gcc compile NetBSD/Alpha.
>  > 
>  > Fine, but why is "unproto" an unacceptable alternative during the
>  > bootstrap process?
> 
> Can we just put this to rest?

Okay, I'll get off the topic after this, but I suspect the issue isn't
dead...

> (PS, I for one, don't want to go through the tree and remove every bloody 
> __P(), especially when I find them useful.)

We don't have to remove them, we could just agree not to add them and
to get rid of them as we see fit. (BTW, a Perl script could probably
remove 90% of them automatically, but thats another story...)

Perry