Roman Divacky schrieb: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:32:01PM +0100, Christoph Mallon wrote: >> Roman Divacky schrieb: >>>> I'm not saying it's wrong to look for alternatives, but you cannot just >>>> change your system compiler like you change underwear. >>> well... the first step is imho starting to compile world with C99... >>> that might reveal some bugs, note that as of a few months ago >>> 8-current compiles cleanly with C99, that does not mean that it's >>> working when you run those programs correctly :) >> One step in the right direction is embracing the nice features modern C >> offers you. For example declaring a variable right were you need it >> instead of dozens of lines away is one such nice thing which improves >> readability. Designated initializers improve readability, too. >> But I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "compile world with C99". C99 >> is pretty much backwards compatible to C89. > > sorry for the bad wording - I meant to turn C99 compilation on default. > We compile in gnu89 mode now. I still have no idea what you mean. Sure, you can specify -std=c99 (or more likely gnu99), but an int is still an int - what do you expect? In fact default mode of GCC accepts many C99 constructs like // comments and mixed declarations and code, which are not valid C89.Received on Fri Jan 09 2009 - 13:28:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:40 UTC