Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Substitute the code in the c99.c file with any
> other C99 idiom and the results should be the same.
That hasn't been my experience. For example, many C89 compilers
support "long long" in some form, even though it's a C99 idiom.
Similarly for compound li
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
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 C9
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:51:50PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> >> I expect to provide a patch to convert the initially-few
> >> uses of c99-specific constructs to equivalent c89 ones.
> >> The manual steps required to build with a pre-c99 compiler
> >
Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>> I expect to provide a patch to convert the initially-few
>> uses of c99-specific constructs to equivalent c89 ones.
>> The manual steps required to build with a pre-c99 compiler
>> will encourage stragglers to obtain/provide a more modern compiler.
>
>
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:45:15AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Do any of you know of platforms for which that would not work?
> >> I.e., for which there is a useful (or better, `essential') compiler
> >> l
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Do any of you know of platforms for which that would not work?
>> I.e., for which there is a useful (or better, `essential') compiler
>> lacking such support?
>
> GCC 2.95.3 is still the C compiler for OpenBSD 3.
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do any of you know of platforms for which that would not work?
> I.e., for which there is a useful (or better, `essential') compiler
> lacking such support?
GCC 2.95.3 is still the C compiler for OpenBSD 3.6 (released November
2004), and it doesn't suppo
I want to make coreutils/src/*.c depend on c99, at least for
the ability to intermix statements and declarations and to be
able to declare variables in `for' loops.
Do any of you know of platforms for which that would not work?
I.e., for which there is a useful (or better, `essential') compiler
la
