On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 12:28 +0100, Michael Natterer wrote: > On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 12:01 +0100, Tim Janik wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Xavier Bestel wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 15:26, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > > > > >> Thats a gcc extension/C99 addition though. We use [1] in other places > > >> where flexible arrays are used. > > > > > > Oh, I imagine there must be good reasons (read: already debated to > > > death) for not taking advantage of C99 improvements. Sorry. > > > > no, it actually hasn't as far as i know. and i think it makes sense to > > at least start discussing this possibility. > > > > > > could people please speak up if they think depending on C99 would > > be a bad idea for glib & gtk+ (e.g. with the next major release) and > > why this would be a problem for them? > > > > in the end, the w32 compilers are C99 compliant i'd assume and on > > older unixes when there're no modern compilers available, there's > > always a C99 compliant gcc that can be used. > > I'm all for this step. GIMP struggles over stone age compilers > on old unixes all the time, and asking people to use a complier > that's a bit younger than 20 years isn't too much to ask for. > > So please, let's get rid of some legacy and enable everybody > to use a bit more modern C. >
We still get regular bug reports from people using gcc 2.95 whenever we acidentally put a variable declaration in the middle of a block. That doesn't mean that we can't declare gcc 2.95 unsupported at some point, but we should probably discuss which C99 features we actually want to use in the GTK+ stack. I'm personally not looking forward to have variable declaration sprinkled all over the code, with the notable exception of for (int i = 0; ...) Matthias _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
