On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Tim Reid <standsthechurchcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was interested to see an impressive amount of work done on this > project, and might be interested in contributing something along the > lines of development, testing and/or documentation. I've started to > have a look through the source, to get some idea of what's going on, > and I've been pleasantly surprised that it mostly meets the stated > goal of ANSI compatibility. Having some extensive experience writing > portable C it seems like a useful exercise to learn about what code > does what by making some of the few changes necessary to put it closer > to achieving C89 conformance. Any objections?
Some time ago we decided that sticking with C89 wasn't flexible enough. We began introducing C99 features; however each one is tested for at configure time. For the most part, I don't think removing these features would be a good thing. The specific features are variadic macros, variable arrays, struct/array initializers, and requiring the presence of stdint.h. See m4/c99.m4 for the checks for these. Within that context, improvements to the conformance of the code would surely be welcome. Specifically any non-C99 non-portable features should be removed if possible, and any other C99 features that are used should have checks added for them. -jason _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freecivemail@example.com https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev