[PATCH] diff portability fixes
Dan Fandrich
dan at coneharvesters.com
Sat Feb 6 03:34:12 UTC 2010
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 07:24:13PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> You're objecting to an 11 year old standards document that our FAQ claims we
> adhere to. (And I wrote that part of the FAQ back in 2006.) This is like
> objecting to unnecessary use of POSIX. The mind boggles.
If all the compilers in the world somehow started supporting C99 as of
January 1, 2000, you'd have a point. Unfortunately, some compilers even
today are lacking parts of C99.
> I used to go with the "add enough c99 they stop thinking removing it's somehow
> an option, let alone desirable", but it's your show...
It's almost at that point now. I've collected a handful of patches that
eliminate the few cases left of dynamically-sized arrays and arrays
initialized from non-const variables, but I've sat on them because these
are cases where readability of the code really does take a hit. But I
won't sit forever on my other patches to fix uses of non-POSIX functions
and to allow a non-GNU linker.
>>> Dan
--
http://www.MoveAnnouncer.com The web change of address service
Let webmasters know that your web site has moved
More information about the busybox
mailing list