On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 08:04:08AM +1100, Andrew Hood wrote:
> Every time someone asks "can we move from C89 to C99" I ask why?
>
> Is there some C99 feature required and without which no further
> development is possible?
>
> Is it just so lazy programmers can use C99 comments and declare variable
> at random places in the code?
>
> As Guy suggests, there are still C compliers around which are not C99
> compliant and which we can not upgrade.
I recently ran into source in some other project where the compiler fell
over some inline statement, because inline is not C89. Removing the fixed
requirement of C89 compliance, the file(s) compiled. That caused me to
think about this a little more and then ask the question here.
My assumption was that by now, C99 might be available on all platforms
where gtk2 is available as well. Also, C99 should get rid of some warnings
that cause the compiler to complain about "not allowed in C89" and the
like. So I picked a bad argument about why to move to C99. I don't mind
if the non-// comments policy remains in place, but I care about the
code to be checked against C99 compliance instead of C89 compliance.
Ciao
Jörg
--
Joerg Mayer <jma...@loplof.de>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
