> For practical reasons we restrict c89 + extensions to building tools.
> For the rest we prefer gnu99.
If we still restrict to c89,
does that mean (in majority) there are no keywords
"inline", "restrict", "_Bool", "_Complex" or "_Imaginary"?
(Note that I barely know what are extended by GNU.)
I be
Hello,
for fun, attached is the dmesg of NetBSD-current on a Dell R7425 with
2 AMD Ryzen 16-core/32 threads CPUs.
Everything seems to be supported (the disk and network controllers are
for sure). Sensors reports only 8 CPU temps (maybe that's the number of dies),
but reported values looks right:
On 24.12.2018 17:09, Gua Chung Lim wrote:
>> For practical reasons we restrict c89 + extensions to building tools.
>> For the rest we prefer gnu99.
> If we still restrict to c89,
> does that mean (in majority) there are no keywords
> "inline", "restrict", "_Bool", "_Complex" or "_Imaginary"?
The r
On 24.12.2018 18:06, i...@sdf.org wrote:
>> For practical reasons we restrict c89 + extensions to building tools.
>
> what is intended by "tools"?
>
src/tools
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
> For practical reasons we restrict c89 + extensions to building tools.
what is intended by "tools"?
On 24.12.2018 15:46, i...@sdf.org wrote:
> is netbsd still using c89 for a majority of it's core?
> if yes, approximately how much percent would that be?
>
For practical reasons we restrict c89 + extensions to building tools.
For the rest we prefer gnu99.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP dig
is netbsd still using c89 for a majority of it's core?
if yes, approximately how much percent would that be?
