On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:30:23AM -0700, Paul Rohr wrote:
> At 12:04 PM 5/3/01 -0500, Sam TH wrote:
> >Lots o' patches. Obviouly, the HP compiler developers need to be
> >taken out and shot. :-)
>
> Maybe so. :-)
>
> However, rather than form a firing squad, we'd probably be better off
> updating our coding standards so we know not to use any of those problematic
> idioms in the future.
>
> For example, we already include a reference to the Mozilla team's guide to
> XP-safe coding techniques, but perhaps it should be more prominent:
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/portable-cpp.html
>
> In particular, many of the recommendations listed there help make code safe
> for, you guessed it -- the HP-UX compiler. ;-)
>
> Our stance to date has been that we *want* to see more compilers grinding
> away on our code because the more of them we can satisfy, the cleaner our
> code will become.
Well, I think these patches do need to be reviewed and integrated, so
that we can work on HP-UX. But I don't think they do anything like
make our code cleaner.
I'm curious, though. Kevin Vajk did lots of work on HP-UX, even
creating makefile rules to create the native packages. So why didn't
he run into these problems?
Kevin?
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
PGP signature
