On 13/02/18 07:17, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> 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 concern is installed bases of systems like AIX, HP-UX, OpenVMS that
haven't been updated in some time, and using the default C compiler.
With Ghostscript, we regularly get reports from such users (not to
mention Windows 95/98/ME, NT 4.0, OS/2, etc, etc - <sigh>!).

It is odd that they insist on using obsolete hardware and operating
systems, but want the latest releases of other software!

Using C99 types, with sane fallbacks makes sense, but using the more
invasive parts of C99 (like mixing declarations and code) could be

>> 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'.

I guess that would come under the heading of "sane fallback" mentioned


Freetype-devel mailing list

Reply via email to