Re: [PATCH] Remove more gcc extension usage.

[Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1768 bytes --]

On Mon, 2006-07-10 04:07:11 -0400, Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> wrote:
> Quoting Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>:
> > Why should we jump through the hoops to support an obsolete standard
> > because proprietary compilers don't stand today's standards?
> 
> Because we want git to run on such systems, and asking to compile gcc first is
> too much to ask for.

As I said, there are precompiled binaries for basically all useable
systems out there.

> There are still missing or broken C99 features in the current gcc:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html

Sure. As are in other compilers. But you forgot to mention that these
missing or broken features are mostly of no use to commonly used C
code. So that's a non-issue. (If it was a real issue, you can be sure
that I'd drop a ton of bug reports into GCC's Bugzilla...)

> Going all the way to strict c89 could be too much, but fixing initializers in a
> few places is a minor issue.  Users of the Sun's compiler can expect us to do
> such changes, just like users of gcc would ask to fix a program that uses c99
> features not yet available in gcc.

I'm not sure about specifically the initializers thing. Personally, I
consider the new C99 initializers one of the very best things that
ever happened to the C language, because it fixes a _real_ problem.
You may have noticed that eg. for the kernel code, these are used
throughoutly...

MfG, JBG

-- 
Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@lug-owl.de    . +49-172-7608481             _ O _
"Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg  _ _ O
 für einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger"  | im Internet! |   im Irak!   O O O
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]