Hello Dick,
Thursday, April 30, 2009, 4:28:54 AM, you wrote:
>> Due to the lack of prior opposition, I had been debating whether to
>> simply commit a change that adds -std=c99 and seeing how the community
>> reacts (since I can now revert it quickly if it poses a real problem).
>>
DH> The -std=c99 option is a big positive for me. I like it. There are C
DH> compilers and there are C++ compilers. In the C compiler realm, it is
DH> difficult to surpass GNU GCC and mingw and cygwin hosted forms. So I
DH> have lost all enthusiasm for trying to support another C compiler,
DH> because it means dumbing down the code.
DH> In the realm of C++ compilers, there is probably less reason to take
DH> this stance, since C++ compilers are all pretty capable, and you would
DH> not have to dumb down the code.
DH> So this command line option is a very good idea in my opinion. We are
DH> already programming on our hands and knees by choosing to use C. At
DH> least this gives us knee pads. Someday maybe we'll actually get up and
DH> program on our feet.
So far the only C99 features I encountered were:
1) variables declared in the middle of a block
2) designated initializers (.field = value in structures)
3) variadic macros
3 is supported by MSVC. 1 can be convenient, but is not used that
much in the source so far - most variables are still declared at the
start of the block. 2 makes some structure definitions more
compact, but really, is it that much harder to write
/* name */ "cfi",
/* register_commands */ cfi_register_commands,
/* flash_bank_command */ cfi_flash_bank_command,
than
.name = "cfi",
.register_commands = cfi_register_commands,
.flash_bank_command = cfi_flash_bank_command,
?
What are the _real_ benefits, not conveniences, that that switch can
bring?
--
WBR,
Igor mailto:skochin...@mail.ru
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
