Re: [gtk-list] Re: Was : Why is gtk+ written in C? - portability?

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Paul Miller <Paul_Miller@avid.com> writes:

> > I thought this thread had died, but apparently not...
> 
> It turned into a discussion of proper use of ANSI STANDARD "C" versus
> using compiler-specific extensions which undermine the portability of
> "portable" code. This is VERY important to gtk, and I think it is
> important to increase awareness of these issues.
> 
> > Can we make it so?
> 
> Just because gtk compiles fine with your compiler doesn't mean it's not
> a problem.

Well, OK. 

But no patch to make GTK+ more ANSI compliant has ever been rejected,
GTK+-1.0.x compiles fine with -ansi -pedantic, and GTK+-1.2.0 will
too.

(Useful 'standard' extensions like 'inline' (in C9X) may be
configure-tested for but they will not be required.)

So, be assured, the ANSI versus non-ANSI discussion isn't useful.

Regards,
                                        Owen