From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:51:13 +0100 (CET)

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, TP Diffenbach wrote:

> But I'm not sure that maintaining backwards compatibility with older gcc
> versions is that necessary -- it's not as if gcc is expensive or hard to
> find.

> I'm suggesting C99 because it offers advantages over C89 (or so I assume;
> the Standard Committee members aren't exactly script kiddies).

On the C99 issue:

For example, we want to keep the simulators possible to compile and build on
as many platforms as possible, without forcing people to upgrade even their
native gcc (or whatever compiler they use).

One of the compilers that is sometimes involved to build simulators, is MSVC.
MSVC is *not* C99 compliant.

Then again, the style we use is used to keep the code look similar all over
the Rockbox sources. It's a bit of a religion what kind of style that is
best, so we don't discuss that now. We just ask contributors to use the style
we already have set to use in Rockbox. We don't ask anyone to like it or join
any religion.

Why rock the boat now? We've managed fine so far.

-- 
 Daniel Stenberg -- http://rockbox.haxx.se/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/

Received on 2003-02-22