From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "George Spelvin" Subject: Re: debugfs: dump a sparse file as a new sparse file Date: 1 Jan 2013 16:25:04 -0500 Message-ID: <20130101212504.11364.qmail@science.horizon.com> References: <20130101205709.GC12554@thunk.org> Cc: gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: linux@horizon.com, tytso@mit.edu Return-path: Received: from science.horizon.com ([71.41.210.146]:33909 "HELO science.horizon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751788Ab3AAVZF (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:25:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20130101205709.GC12554@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > There are people who compile e2fsprogs under Windows (e.g. for FUSE > for Windows support), and MSVC does not support VLA's or C99 in > general In general I tend to be very conservative about what compiler > features are used in e2fsprogs, and I do care about portability beyond > just Linux systems. Ah, thank you! I fully agree that's an important C compiler to target; I had just erroneously assumed that commercial C compilers would try to be "check-box feature complete" on such matters. But apparently Microsoft don't support C99 and have no intention to: http://herbsutter.com/2012/05/03/reader-qa-what-about-vc-and-c99/ http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio/suggestions/2089423-c99-support http://www.infoq.com/news/2012/05/vs_c99_support/ That's a good enough reason; my only remaining objection is calling it "a non-standard/non-portable GCC extension".