From: Daniel Caujolle-B. <seg...@cl...> - 2002-10-23 19:06:07
|
Hi All, Guenter Bartsch wrote: > hi james, hi mike, > > >>>When Guenter broke the CVS when moving over to the new api, I was happy, >>>because this was going to benefit us in the future. I do not see the gcc >>>-ansi option as any real benefit at all, considering the problems it causes. >> >> I concur. Down with the -ansi flag! > > > it surely looks like -ansi does too much harm here. i just browsed > through the gcc documentation and found > > ANSI_FLAGS="-std=gnu89" > > quite useful. kernel headers survive it, but // and variable > declarations that are not located at the beginning of a scope do not > get through. of course ANSI_FLAGS should be renamed to something like > CLEAN_C_FLAGS ;> > > comments? Yes, stop this stupid thread, add a note about that in the hacker's guide. All xine's devel read this list, so i guess it's clear this coding style may ba avoid in any xine's code. I think this is the better solution, auto* process may not be modified, or clash with anything, and devels can start write nice (and useful) code again. Cheers. -- 73's de Daniel, F1RMB. -=- Daniel Caujolle-Bert -=- seg...@cl... -=- -=- f1...@f1... (AMPR NET) -=- |