On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 10:44 -0700, Elliott Hughes wrote:
> most of the compiler warnings i see (from myself and others) are
> things that are perfectly valid C99 but extensions to C90. is there a
> reason why we're stuck with C90? is there some widespread compiler
> that doesn't have C99 support yet? (i know the opposite is true: that
> there's a widespread compiler that silently accepts C99 without
> warning, which is why so many warnings get committed to Subversion:
> the authors don't know.)
The most notable compiler without any C99 support is MSVC (even newest
version AFAIK) - so I guess we're stuck with declaring variables at the
beginning of blocks.
> the // comments aren't such a big deal (though it's annoying to have
> to keep going back) but not being able to declare variables where
> they're defined is misleading and error-prone. and, like i said, some
> committers don't have a compiler that can warn about use of C99.
In my case, I had compiled without maintainer mode - now I actually did
see them and fixed them. Maybe it would be a good idea to add the
warning flags even in non-maintainer mode.
Elias Pschernig <elias@...>