Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:42:41 +0100 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: Eitan Adler <eadler@FreeBSD.org> Cc: soc-status@FreeBSD.org, Justin Edward Muniz <jmuniz@FreeBSD.org>, Matthew Windsor <mbw500@york.ac.uk> Subject: Re: GSoC Status: Week 11 Message-ID: <440E5361-BC33-49DD-B51D-C77E9880BD1A@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgkK6HOY3ErR5T4coDO3ORGtzf5jN-gg13JbCSKU6vtTkg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAFxS2Cir5QMU2xKYbGpxSu5jLyEUs%2BBnEzv2stoNw%2BO=95Q_pA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF6rxgkK6HOY3ErR5T4coDO3ORGtzf5jN-gg13JbCSKU6vtTkg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 Sep 2013, at 00:54, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> wrote: >> As a minor note, I've pushed the C standard back down to C99. This >> should allow FreeBSD stock gcc to compile the backend. >=20 > I'm not very worried about this. If the code is cleaner with C11 > please feel free to use it. Agreed. If the code is destined to live in a port, then the only = requirement is that it must be able to compile with a ports compiler. = Ideally, it should compile with gcc 4.7/8 in addition to clang (since = clang isn't available on all architectures), but this shouldn't be = considered a blocker. Also, note that we have tried to ensure that most C11 features (with = _Generic being the big exception) work even with our ancient GCC. David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?440E5361-BC33-49DD-B51D-C77E9880BD1A>