From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 9 17:28:15 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671D9106568F for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:28:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rdivacky@vlk.vlakno.cz) Received: from vlakno.cz (77-93-215-190.static.masterinter.net [77.93.215.190]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4938FC0A for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rdivacky@vlk.vlakno.cz) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vlakno.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD1C9CB170; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:28:02 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at vlakno.cz Received: from vlakno.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lev.vlakno.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RNdBQuhYMjt8; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:27:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from vlk.vlakno.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vlakno.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C506E9CB298; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:27:47 +0100 (CET) Received: (from rdivacky@localhost) by vlk.vlakno.cz (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id n09HRl2v069611; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:27:47 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from rdivacky) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:27:47 +0100 From: Roman Divacky To: Christoph Mallon Message-ID: <20090109172747.GA69471@freebsd.org> References: <20090109031147.GB44317@duncan.reilly.home> <49672189.5060109@gmx.de> <20090109110508.GA12123@freebsd.org> <496751D1.20605@gmx.de> <20090109134725.GA38233@freebsd.org> <49675F04.20006@gmx.de> <20090109143339.GA45569@freebsd.org> <49676598.7040708@gmx.de> <20090109150750.GA50331@freebsd.org> <496772E1.2050504@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <496772E1.2050504@gmx.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Andrew Reilly , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ollivier Robert Subject: Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:28:15 -0000 > >my point is that in C89 mode *restrict* (in whatever spelling) got expanded > >to nothing. we had a bug (typo in fact) related to *restrict* and we didnt > >catch it because of C89 compilation mode... > > Ah, you mean a simple syntax error like char __restrict* a instead of > char* __restrict a. I thought you meant something serious like different > behaviour between the standards. Why somebody would #define away > __restrict (or #define away any other extension, which GCC accepts > anyway) is beyond me. If the source code already contains distinctions > between C89 and C99 then, imo, somebody did something wrong. my point was general - people expect C99 features and use them (it's 10 years old) but we dont compile in that mode - this mismatch may yield weird bugs > >my point is that we might have bugs in the C99 code that other (non-gcc) > >compilers > >expose and it's a good thing to unite on one standard. ie. C99 :) > > In general I agree: C99 should be used as language standard for > compilation. style(9) needs some updates for this, too. I hope we'll have C99 on default soon :)