Fwd: Re: Depending on C99 (Re: GtkBindingSignal changes)

I disagree with this completely. We compile all of our code on Solaris/AIX with 
SunPRO cc & IBM xlc without c99 extensions enabled for our own reasons. Code can
 take advantage of c99 features, but only if they can be abstracted out in 

Andrew Paprocki
Bloomberg LP

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Natterer  <mitch gimp org>
At:  1/ 5  6:37

On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 12:01 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 15:26, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> >
> >> Thats a gcc extension/C99 addition though. We use [1] in other places
> >> where flexible arrays are used.
> >
> > Oh, I imagine there must be good reasons (read: already debated to
> > death) for not taking advantage of C99 improvements. Sorry.
> no, it actually hasn't as far as i know. and i think it makes sense to
> at least start discussing this possibility.
> could people please speak up if they think depending on C99 would
> be a bad idea for glib & gtk+ (e.g. with the next major release) and
> why this would be a problem for them?
> in the end, the w32 compilers are C99 compliant i'd assume and on
> older unixes when there're no modern compilers available, there's
> always a C99 compliant gcc that can be used.

I'm all for this step. GIMP struggles over stone age compilers
on old unixes all the time, and asking people to use a complier
that's a bit younger than 20 years isn't too much to ask for.

So please, let's get rid of some legacy and enable everybody
to use a bit more modern C.


gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]