der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> writes:

> For NetBSD, this is a problem because NetBSD really wants both
> traditional C (for things like the kernel) and new C (for applications
> and much of userland and suchlike), and secondarily because if NetBSD
> imports this new gcc unchanged, it will be inflicting on its users the
> same silent and partial shift from traditional C to new C that I wrote
> about above.

We want the better optimizations that "new C" enables more than we
want the semantics of "traditional C". Thus, anything that depends on
"traditional C" should be fixed.

I also think that very little of the kernel is sufficently low-level
that the "traditional C" argument is even remotely plausable; most of
it is written with higher-level language concepts and data structures,
and if it were practical, it would be better to write it in some
higher-level language.

        - Nathan