Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:27:47 +0100 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> To: Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de> Cc: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> Subject: Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler? Message-ID: <20090109172747.GA69471@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <496772E1.2050504@gmx.de> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >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 :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090109172747.GA69471>