On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:30 PM, John Ralls wrote:
>
> On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Ralls wrote:
>>
>> Okay well, I *think* you answered my question, which is that you want
>> the stack to build with "c99".
>
> No, but Emmanuele did:
On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Ralls wrote:
>
> Okay well, I *think* you answered my question, which is that you want
> the stack to build with "c99".
No, but Emmanuele did: It should be c89. Gobject-introsopection has been
failing th
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> 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.
Actually gtk3 currently fails with -std=c99 even due to some anonymous
unions in gtkcssprovide
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Ralls wrote:
>
> I wanted to know whether I should file a bug on cmph not compiling when I
> feed it -std=c99 (almost everything else,
> including gtk+, builds happily with c89, so no, it doesn't have nested
> functions) or just change the gtk-osx jhbuild mo
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 12:07 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Matthias Clasen
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Ralls wrote:
> >
> >> But since you bring it up, what is the "official" policy? Is it C89? Is it
> >> published somewhere?
> >
> > For GTK
On 16 December 2010 17:07, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Matthias Clasen
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Ralls wrote:
>>
>>> But since you bring it up, what is the "official" policy? Is it C89? Is it
>>> published somewhere?
>>
>> For GTK+, we're gene
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Matthias Clasen
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Ralls 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 fo
On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Ralls 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
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Ralls 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
On Dec 15, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:35 PM, John Ralls wrote:
>> One of the files in the new (to introspection) cmph directory, chd_ph.c,
>> includes an anonymous union which requires -std=gnu99 to compile. Is that OK?
>
> This would have been better as
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:35 PM, John Ralls wrote:
> One of the files in the new (to introspection) cmph directory, chd_ph.c,
> includes an anonymous union which requires -std=gnu99 to compile. Is that OK?
This would have been better as a bug. However, if what you're
*really* asking here is:
*
One of the files in the new (to introspection) cmph directory, chd_ph.c,
includes an anonymous union which requires -std=gnu99 to compile. Is that OK?
Regards,
John Ralls
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/ma
12 matches
Mail list logo
