Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:20:39 +0100 From: "Ivan Voras" <ivoras@gmail.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r185356 - head/sys/dev/ixgbe Message-ID: <9bbcef730811270220h1a7f812k2ba340737132ff82@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20081127.000621.1413927847.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200811270219.mAR2Ji2M073024@svn.freebsd.org> <20081126213204.14db9a63@kan.dnsalias.net> <20081127.000621.1413927847.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2008/11/27 M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>: > In message: <20081126213204.14db9a63@kan.dnsalias.net> > Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> writes: > : Is C99 construct here intentional? If so, when did we agree on using > : only C99 compilers on our code base? > > I'm not sure about *THIS* c99 construct, but we've been heavily > relying on the field name initializer stuff for a couple of years now. And at least the newer GEOM code also uses c99 variable declarations (not only for initializers - they were c99 from the start).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9bbcef730811270220h1a7f812k2ba340737132ff82>