Re: [PATCH] Remove more gcc extension usage.
- From
- Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>
- Date
- Jul 10, 2006, 08:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20060710081808.GC22573@lug-owl.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <20060710040711.z1h4w0wsgk8sskg4@webmail.spamcop.net>
On Mon, 2006-07-10 04:07:11 -0400, Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> 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));