On Sep 28, 2013, at 6:17 PM, Tom Browder wrote: > After a few days struggling with using -std=c89, it seems to me we > would save a LOT of effort by starting with -std=C99. Many of the > problems with strict C89 are undeclared functions which are okay with > C99. Otherwise one would have to create a lot of bu_* replacements. > See ./src/compat/README.compat for a list of such I've found so far.
It's worth noting that we had strict c89 compile recently. At least within the past 10 years, but it was prior to eliminating our K&R code. All of our transgressions have been relatively recent and few overall. I'll have to take a look through your README.compat but notionally we've tackled far bigger and more complex cleanups in a short amount of time. Gut feeling is still less than a week's worth of work. Also, I'd be surprised if we needed to create and/many bu_* replacements. Many of the issues already have an alternative or can be disabled without significant impact. Case by case of course, but the progress you've made is definitely helpful in getting there just documenting the issues. Cheers! Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
