From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Larry Johnson Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:22:56 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] use of C99 In-Reply-To: <4A0B9AAA-4714-4C27-84A7-22FCE4D91DDA@freescale.com> References: <4A0B9AAA-4714-4C27-84A7-22FCE4D91DDA@freescale.com> Message-ID: <49DD31D0.8010400@acm.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Kumar Gala wrote: > I was wondering if there was any reason we avoid C99 features in u- > boot source. Maybe the best reason is that the Linux kernel avoids them, and staying consistent with the Linux coding style saves a lot of time and headaches. IMO, this is worth the occasional clumsiness that results. BTW, the Linux kernel does not avoid all C99 features. For example, it relies heavily on named initialization of structs. However, AFAICT, it shuns those C99 feature that originated in C++. Best regards, Larry