[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: sync.m

From: Nicola Pero
Subject: Re: sync.m
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:16:04 +0000

We should not sacrifice new features or readability for the sake of
holding on to older architectures and compilers.

Also, the use of non-c99 standards does hinder contributions since we
constantly expect people who don't have access to c99 based compilers
to change their code to conform to c89.

I think we should have a clear, explicit and unemotional support/ compatibility strategy. :-)

As GCC 2.95.3 was released in March 16, 2001, it may make sense to no longer support it.
Or maybe it does.  I vote for supporting it.

Anyway the question really is - what is the oldest GCC that we support if it's not 2.95.3 ?

3.0.4 (released February 20, 2002) ?

Just mentioning c99 doesn't seem to help that much since IIRC no version of GCC actually implements all of c99 anyway. I actually am not really sure what C99 features,
added after 2.95, we really need.

Nobody is breaking things gratuitously. The c99isms slip in to code simply because all modern compilers support them, and don't warn you that older compilers won't. Most people use them habitually (locality of declaration of variables is particularly good for code readability for instance) and simply won't notice that they have used them.

We can use -Wdeclaration-after-statement to get a post-2.95 GCC warn you when you locally declare variables without starting a { } block. Really not a problem - it's easy enough to add it to gnustep-base and gnustep-gui.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]