On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:59 PM, Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> I think the intent was to be able to run Wireshark's C code through C++ >>>> compilers; I can't find the mail where this was discussed, but, as I >>>> remember, the issue was that Microsoft were dragging their feet on C99 >>>> support, and we wanted to be able to use at least some features present in >>>> both C99 and the versions of C++ supported by the Microsoft compiler. >>>> >>>> Microsoft have gotten more receptive to C99 features; is this something we >>>> still want to contemplate - and to try to keep open as a possibility, by >>>> compiling with -Wc++-compat? >>>> >>>> If I try to build what's currently in master, it fails on my Yosemite >>>> machine, with Xcode 7.0.1 >>> >>> Not after rebuilding and reinstalling all the development libraries and >>> doing make maintainer-clean/autogen/configure/make. >>> >>> But what was the reason for adding checks for C++ compatibility, and does >>> it still apply? >> >> My memory matches yours: it was about MSVC (and other more obscure >> compilers we theoretically support, on platforms I have never actually >> used**) not having C99 features. >> >> Part of me would like to take a hard line and say: "these are the C99 >> features we require, deal with it" but I don't know how much screaming >> that would entail. Another part of me would like to just switch to use >> C++ compilers on all our common platforms and start gradually >> introducing some of the useful, not-insanely-complex bits of C++ into >> the code-base, but I already know how much screaming that would entail >> :P >> >> ** `doc/README.developer` references IBM's compiler for AIX as one >> which lacks even basic C99 support like // comments. > > Some experimenting with The Written Word's machines found that: > > XL C on AIX, with -qlanglvl=extc89, accepts variadic macros, but does > *not* accept // comments; > > XL C on AIX, with -qlanglvl=extc99, accepts variadic macros and // > comments. > > Looking at the XL C 7.0 documentation: > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27005410&aid=1 > > indicates that -qlanglvl=extc89 -qcpluscmt should also handle // comments. > > There are probably old enough versions of XL C that cannot be made to handle > // comments, but, unless they handle macros with a variable number of > arguments, they can't handle the current 2.x Wireshark source. > > We're now using AC_PROG_CC_STDC rather than AC_PROG_CC in the configure > script in 2.x, and, at least for versions of XL C that support C99, that will > enable all C99 features. > > I think, at this point, that the only compiler we'll be dealing with that's > limited in its C99 capabilities is MSVC, and, so far, we haven't used > anything it can't handle. > > My inclination is to keep using AC_PROG_CC_STDC, let whatever C99isms that > lets get through remain as long as MSVC can handle them (if it can't, that'll > show up in the build), and allow // comments.
+1 ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
