On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 12:07 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Matthias Clasen > <matthias.cla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Ralls <jra...@ceridwen.us> wrote: > > > >> But since you bring it up, what is the "official" policy? Is it C89? Is it > >> published somewhere? > > > > For GTK+, we're generally avoiding C++ comments, since they cause > > problems for the compilers that are used on win32. What other non-C89 > > features do you have in mind ? > > But they *are* used in gtk3 right now...
then they should be removed. we don't use c99 in glib and gtk -- it's been pointed out many times in many threads on this very mailing list. > But the point is, if something's not tested, it's basically guaranteed > to break (like srcdir != builddir, etc). gcc defaults to enabling GNU > features, and the buildbots don't specify -std=c89, so there is > absolutely zero testing coverage. it's trivial to add a new compiler flag; in Clutter we even use the AS_COMPILER_FLAGS m4 macro[1] written by David Schleef to guarantee portability. ciao, Emmanuele. [1] http://git.clutter-project.org/clutter/tree/build/autotools/as-compiler-flag.m4 -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
