On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 12:23:32AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: >On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 12:12:22AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote: >> Is there anywhere in the X source code that *gasp* uses ANSI >> trigraphs and relies on this broken^Wwonderful feature of ANSI C >> being enabled? ;o) >> >> I ask because I just discovered that by default trigraphs are >> enabled in the sources. I patch I am applying contains the >> string "(???)" which is how I discovered this. >> >> I'm wondering wether disabling trigraphs by default in stock >> sources is considered OK, or if I should have my patch escape the >> trigraph sequences to not be tokenized instead? >> >> Changing the "(???)" to something else is also an option, but I'd >> prefer to do one of the above instead, and just wondered what >> common consensus might be. > >hehe... ran into this in the Linux kernel, too, where comments >containing "???" occur from time to time :) > >ANSI trigraphs are pretty damn useless these days. However, with >the large number of compilers XFree86 must support, I think the safe >bet is to be fully standard compliant -- including these annoying >trigraphs nobody wants. Why? The alternative is to research how to >disable trigraphs on _every_ compiler that XFree86 may support :/
That about sums it up. In the interests of portable code it's best to be as compliant as possible. David -- David Dawes Release Engineer/Architect The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
