On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 08:17:37PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:51:50PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> So, people building coreutils will have a choice: apply the > >> c99->c89 patch or install a modern compiler and use that > >> instead of the vendor-supplied one. > > > > There are two issues with C99, compiler support and library support. A > > survey of all of our platforms wrt C99 support is available at: > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2006-January/msg00275.html > > Thanks for the pointer. For coreutils, though, the only C99 feature > that it relies on is statements-before-declarations. That URL refers > to the struct hack, which is a different matter. > > The struct hack is also a nice feature to use, but it is more-easily > configurable via an autoconf test, with a fallback to a trailing array > member with one element. Statements-before-declarations isn't that > easy to conditionalize; you either use it and require it, or you > don't.
The URL refers to the struct hack not as an exhaustive test to determine whether or not a compiler supports C99 but as a "probably good enough" test to determine if a compiler supports C99 for the results of the survey. Substitute the code in the c99.c file with any other C99 idiom and the results should be the same. -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
