On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:19 PM Moritz Lennert < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Am 29. Januar 2021 20:54:06 GMT+00:00 schrieb Markus Metz < [email protected]>: > >Hi Huidae, > > > >On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:30 PM Huidae Cho <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Markus, > >> > >> I think we have to think about what benefits it would bring to us by > >modernizing C code. Probably, not much at all. Personally, I would keep it > >as is because the minimum set of anything (e.g., ANSI C with no new > >features) would probably be more portable, I believe. In other words, what > >are we missing from C99? > > > >as I mentioned, there is no need to modernize the GRASS C code. The > >question is if we officially allow C99 features. > > > >For example a number of useful math-related functions and macros are only > >available with C99. See /usr/include/math.h on your system and search for > >C99. Also a number of features related to data types, particularly for > >various int datatypes (stdint.h), become available with C99. And the > >geographic lib in PROJ with src/geodesic.c wants C99. For new PROJ > >versions, C99 is a requirement. > > > If proj requires it, doesn't it automatically become a requirement for GRASS as well ?
No, because the code base of other libs might have completely different compile requirements. A software can use functions and libs of other software packages, but does not need to follow the compile standards of those other software packages, because they are compiled independently. Markus M
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
