On Apr 22, 2010, at 4:04 PM, Nathan O'Treally wrote:
On 18 Apr., 20:54, "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote:
I do wonder if the whole of the Sage library should be built C99.
I'm not sure
how it works if some parts are, and other parts are not. I could
imagine that
might have the potential to have some undesirable side effects.
Perhaps it is
better to build it all C99. Of course, that would need a lot of
testing, but in
the long run it might be better.
C99 is not fully *source* compatible to C89, so give it a try... ;-)
(i.e. old code may fail to compile with -std=c99)
Very little code in the Sage library is C, most of it is Cython
generated, which should be C89 both and C99 compatible (though of
course the latter if you use C99-only headers.) Since we require a C99
compiler anyways, might not hurt to build all (non-C++) code with this
flag. Are there any downsides to this?
- Robert
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
