On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Måns Rullgård <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]> writes: > >> From: "Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]> > >> > >> Defining restrict results - for some compilers - in changing other > >> uses of the restrict keyword also, e.g. __declspec(restrict) gets > >> changed to __declspec(__restrict) on MSVC. This causes compilation > >> failures. Therefore, using a private namespace macro instead is > >> more reliable and robust. > > > > NAK. restrict is a C99 keyword, and we use C99 features all over the > > place. Whatever preprocessor is used to handle, for instance, > > designated initialisers can just as easily handle these keywords. > > By which law were we decreed that c99 shall be the end of the world?
We set out to demand basic standard support from our environment a long time ago. We did the same with the build system. It has to be a POSIX shell and utilities userland. Nowadays this is not such a big deal but back in the days this left still-popular Solaris and some BSDs behind. At some point the systems catched up and nowadays this is a requirement that all modern systems fulfill without much trickery. At the same time it has allowed us to keep the build system much more maintainable and its maintainers sane. For C99 it is the same story mostly. There were incompatible goals: portability and language features, so a reasonably recent standard was picked as the required baseline. IIRC this left at least icc out back in the days, but it has catched up pretty nicely since. Now MSVC is a completely different story as it is Windows, Microsoft, nonfree and not standards-compliant. To top it off none of the people that requested supporting it ever really contributed. So for a long time, that was really out of the question. Now going back to plain C89 is pretty much out of the question. Nobody wants to give up their new shiny. Whether or not we need full C99 is an open question. > I wish to support a compiler that does not support c99. Shall we work > together and make that happen or shall we just cry like little zealous > babies while the real world passes by? Comments like this are not exactly helping, but you know that. Let's instead cooperate on getting the sensible parts of this patch in. I have already extracted a piece, more have followed. Start with the simple pieces and work your way up from there. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
