On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 05:29, Chris Sherlock wrote: > One last thing: half these warnings wouldn't happen if we knew what > standard we were compiling to: C89 or C99. C89. > I asked on #gnome-hackers the > other night and I got two responses. jdub said it was undefined (lovely > word that) but then suggested we compile to C89 to try to keep max > compatibility. In which case the -ansi tag would be the go. -ansi breaks a ton of stuff. We want to be able to use GCC extensions where available. The best way in my opinion is to use -std=c89, along with -Wall -Werror and a bunch of other -Wblah flags. The rhythmbox configure.ac has some code to do this that I shamelessly stole from Alex Larsson's gnome-keyring code and hacked up. > Of course, > if we compile to C89, what features and advantages of C99 are we missing > out on? Mixed declarations and code, and variable-length arrays are the big ones, the latter of which is broken in GCC last I checked.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part