[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:34:53 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: compatability: bits/syscall.h requires C99
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:31:48PM +0200, John Spencer wrote:
> On 08/23/2012 07:07 AM, idunham@...abit.com wrote:
> >I've been trying to get musl compatability patches for libuv merged
> >upstream, and I have it building, but there's one sticking point:
> >Upstream insists on using --std=c89
>
> insisting on c89 sounds really stupid.
Agreed. This does not improve compatibility; it breaks compatibility,
especially if they happen to #include any third-party library header
which is not _documented_ as being c89 compatible. (Even if it happens
to work with -std=c89 now, unless it's documented that it does and
always will, this might change in a future version.)
> (and your musl patch is very ugly, if not entirely pointless)
I had some potential ideas for other ways to do this. Anyway the
discussion is not entirely pointless since we need to address
"restrict" at some point too, and the mechanisms for doing so will be
similar (but worse, since "restrict" is not a keyword by default in
most compilers without -std=c99, unlike "inline" which works unless
you intentionally enable strict-mode)...
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
