>> Maybe we can announce in the forthcoming release that we are
>> switching to C99 later on.
> I have no objection to have some conditional parts for C99-specific
> feature, but I feel negative with the total migration to C99. "For
> LLP64 platform except of Win64, C99 compiler is needed" would be
> enough, if Pierre's guessing is correct.
Hmm. Even the dinosaur called `emacs' moved to C99 a few years
ago :-) While being conservative, it doesn't make sense in case
everyone already moved on – I've looked into Wikipedia's C99 page, and
it seems that there aren't any major compilers that don't support it
(at least the very decent set of changes we would need or use).
> The usage of FT_UINT_TO_POINTER() macro is only used to store the
> 32-bit integer (GID) into the storage of FT_List object directly. I
> feel it's overkill to close C89 support just to keep this method in
> LLP64 on the platforms which we have not known their names yet.
I still vote for the possibility to change FT_UINT_TO_POINTER in a
configuration file, for example with some code in `ftstdlib.h'.
> If we have a time machine, we should suggest to have an union
> instead of void pointer in FT_ListRec X-(
Freetype-devel mailing list