Jim Meyering wrote:
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote:
Yet again, a new C89-incompatibility ... [snip]
As you can see, I am not very motivated to be
proactive about supporting such ancient compilers.
Is upgrading not an option for you?
As I recall, I work with several platforms that do not have C99
compilers. [snip] ...at any rate I still run into this sort of
thing often enough that non-c89 code is annoying.
Don't worry. Support for pre-C99 compilers won't go away soon, but it may
continue to lag. I was simply explaining why (too few people care)
I'm not investing the time to cater proactively to such systems.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Maybe it would help if someone occasionally did builds with gcc's
strict-c89 mode (or at least turned on the specific c89-related
warnings)? I don't know if any automated builds happen, but it seems
like gcc should be able to at least help out in this department.
--
Matthew
"What's Cygwin?" you ask.
'Tis mostly absurd software
Concerning hippos.
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
