On 22 November 2017 at 23:09, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:30:10 +0000 > Javier Guerra Giraldez <[email protected]> wrote: >> why not? fossil makes for a neat deployment client! yes, it can also >> be done with just an http client, but still is a nice option to have. > > Because people do not use compilers on such systems, but rather, they > use other systems that can compile for the target system.
i _have_ used fossil running in a very small MIPS system. as mentioned, it's really nice to pull versioned stuff like configurations, HTML, binary blobs. yes, i used gcc to compile it, but what was small two years ago now might be in the same boat as that. >> but i haven't seen any reason to promote a language switch. nice as >> they are, C11 features make only easier development; not better code, >> much less any performance improvement or any user-visible advantage. > > I am not suggesting a language switch (C11 is still C) and I'm also > not suggesting just use C11 for the sake of it. Rather, I am suggesing > using modern C features to clean up the code and allow the compiler to > optimise it better. For example, postponed variable declarations, > inline functions, stdint.h definitions, etc. This isn't even C11 stuff, > it's all basic C99 functionality which has been around for 18 years. all those features have zero impact on the generated machine code. > What sort of weird targets does SQLite run on which require the use of > a very old (or broken) compiler that can't handle any C99 features? MS Visual Studio -- Javier _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
