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

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.


Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to