|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: C99 and EOL commentsRe: C99 and EOL comments
From: Nils <deathtoallhumans_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 19:18:38 +0200 On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:10 PM, David Johnston<david_at_pinkandaint.com> wrote: > So I understand from what I've read in various places that Rockbox > endeavors to comply with a pre-C99 C standard (C89, I guess, since we > don't use KNR-style function definitions). My question is, why? I > think someone mentioned that it's so that people with older compilers > can still compile Rockbox, but would it be so horrible to require a > compiler that's less than ten years old? Who is this serving, and > isn't it quite a hindrance to most of us? For instance, C99 would let > people use EOL comments and has a more well-defined behavior for the > modulo operator when dealing with negative numbers -- and those are > just a couple things I've encountered since I started working with > Rockbox. > > While we're on the subject, I've been programming in C since 1992 and > I've never encountered a compiler that couldn't handle EOL comments. > > Can anyone elaborate generally on why we stick with C89, and more > specifically why EOL comments aren't allowed? > > -David > Hi, if you by "EOL comments" mean the // style comments I am pretty sure there is no technical reason that we don't want them it is just the code style decided for rockbox code. As for using C99 features I am not sure what other devs think of them but we are generally supporting only a single version of gcc for each target so support for older compilers is likely not an issue. Received on 2009-08-06 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |