Quoting Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Uhh, this isn't a legal C99 construct. I think you've been heads-down
in C++ too much.
But it is. Problem is, we don't declare our dependence on c99, but we
use its constructs all over the place. Compilers are free to not
support what we don't declare.
Sorry, I meant it IS a C99 construct and doesn't work on older compilers.
I think we should either stick with -c89 -pedantic, or just accept
-c99. Otherwise, we're left the whim of whatever c99 features the
compiler wants to offer without warning.
I don't think our internal libraries would compile with -c89
-pedantic, so declaring -c99 would be far easier.
... or we could just continue to fix it up whenever a less liberal
compiler complains.
In this case, FC3's gcc 3.4.4
-chris
-derek
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
