Re: g_remove

[Jaroslav ÅmÃd <jardasmid gmail com>]

On 02/19/2011 10:19 AM, David NeÄas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 01:21:37AM +0100, Jaroslav ÅmÃd wrote:
> > C99 has no implicit int shits, so don't ignore compiler's warning and
> > fix it.
> >
> > David NeÄas: "All according to the C standard". Right, you didn't tell
> > us which one, one could think you mean "every C standard out there".
>
> My English is not perfect but I think can distinguish between "a
> standard", "the standard" and "all standards", thank you very much.

Maybe. Doesn't meen you didn't tell which one.

> So, no "the standard" means a single C standard.  The only C standard
> relevant to the problem.
The standard the Criag's C compiler adheres to
> (or at least tries) while compiling the program.

Yes, C99 is the only relevant. I was compiling glib on FreeBSD recently 
and I noticed that at least 1 depency* of glib required -std=c99 and at 
least one required -std=gnu99 argument for compiling, that means glib 
and any app using glib is indirectly dependent on compiler with C99 
support. And without C99, glib's condition of "requiring 64bit integer 
type" could be hardly met e.g. on x86-32 linux with glibc without C99 
support - glibc has typedef "long long" to int64_t on such system and 
long long is only available in C99. So glib depends on C99 compiler, at 
least on x86-32 linux with glibc and on FreeBSD amd64  Because of that, 
"the standard" substitutes to C99 standard in my head.

* direct, indirect, build time or runtime ... it is depency. Don't know 
names, but if you want, you can find out by yourself.

> Yeti

JardÃk