Stefanos <[email protected]> wrote: > So, is it something that we need to do to fix this erratic behavior or is it > something that's expected?
tl;dr:
- since it is deprecated, usleep should be replaced by nanosleep
- gnu99 is not standardised like c99 - the answer (a GNU opinion of
what should be done) is not worth researching
==> We could aim to eliminate all std=gnu* flags in the tree.
I would say YAGNI in this matter.
Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, don't bother changing the
code.
A compelling reason to change the code:
Aiming for standards-compliance instead of "do whatever GNU does" makes
the answer to "what is expected?" clear.
And when it isn't, you submit a ticket to the standardising body.
In general, I would push for standards-compliance instead of using the
GNU extensions.
The tinycc source should be free of GNUisms, i.e. plain
standards-compliant code, possibly able to compile non-compliant GNU-flavor
code.
That also applies to the makefiles, which are in GNU flavor. Feel free
to have a taste with your non-GNU make of choice
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
