Re: Depending on C99 (Re: GtkBindingSignal changes)

Hash: SHA1

Hans Breuer <hans breuer org> writes:

> On 05.01.2006 17:26, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Matthias Clasen <mclasen redhat com> writes:
>>> Visual C++ 6.0 doesn't support C99 variadic macros.
>> It's over eight years old.  The last time I checked, anyone could
>> download the latest MS compiler from the MS website, so I don't think
>> there's any good reason to restrict yourselves to this compiler's
>> capabilities.
> Have you used any of the MS compilers to compile at least Glib?
> The last free (as in in beer) version did not support linking with
> the C-runtine as DLL at all.

No.  I've built everything from Glib up to some GNOME libs quite a
number of times with both Cygwin and MinGW, however.  GCC works
perfectly well, and can be binary compatible with the MS libraries
should you require it.

>> You can only take portability so far until it becomes
>> counter-productive.  Why not just make proper C99 support the minimum
>> requirement?
> Why not simply drop usage of anything else than the latest GCC?
> And ony be portable to differnt flavours of Linux? *No* NOT serious.

Support for obsolete, non-standard and proprietary compilers is not
particularly compelling for me as a free software developer,
particuarly when it prevents the use of beneficial features of the C
language as standardised by ISO.

I'm aware that quite a number of folks use MSVC to develop proprietary
applications, but I do have to question whether the long-term
detrimental effects of being tied to it outweigh being stuck in the
past.  I would be interested to know how many of the existing MSVC
users can't use GCC.


- -- 
Roger Leigh
                Printing on GNU/Linux?
                Debian GNU/Linux
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <>


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