On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, David A. Wheeler wrote:

> Petr Baudis wrote:
> > [Re: Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s patch] 
> > Note that you are breaking gcc-2.95 compatibility when using declarator
> > in the middle of a block. Not that it might be a necessarily bad thing
> > ;-) (although I still use gcc-2.95 a lot), just to ring a bell so that
> > it doesn't slip through unnoticed and we can decide on a policy
> > regarding this.
> I, at least, would REALLY like to see _highly_ portable C code;
> I'm looking at git as a potential long-term useful SCM tool for
> LOTS of projects, and if you're going to write C, it'd be nice
> to just write it portably to start with. There's certainly
> no crisis in using separate declarators.

Mixing declarations and code is the least of portability issues; it's in
the current C standard unlike a number of other things. I've personally
never found a system where -lz has deflateBound but gcc doesn't support
C99, although they obviously exist. I have no problem with fixing things
up for old GCC, although I'm going to have a hard time finding such things
because I can't find a way to make recent GCC reject C99 features but not
old GNU extensions.

*This .sig left intentionally blank*

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to