Re: Gobject-Introspection and CMPH

[Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com>]

On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 12:07 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Matthias Clasen
> <matthias clasen gmail com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Ralls <jralls ceridwen us> wrote:
> >
> >> But since you bring it up, what is the "official" policy? Is it C89? Is it published somewhere?
> >
> > For GTK+, we're generally avoiding C++ comments, since they cause
> > problems for the compilers that are used on win32. What other non-C89
> > features do you have in mind ?
> 
> But they *are* used in gtk3 right now...

then they should be removed. we don't use c99 in glib and gtk -- it's
been pointed out many times in many threads on this very mailing list.

> But the point is, if something's not tested, it's basically guaranteed
> to break (like srcdir != builddir, etc).  gcc defaults to enabling GNU
> features, and the buildbots don't specify -std=c89, so there is
> absolutely zero testing coverage.

it's trivial to add a new compiler flag; in Clutter we even use the
AS_COMPILER_FLAGS m4 macro[1] written by David Schleef to guarantee
portability.

ciao,
 Emmanuele.

[1]
http://git.clutter-project.org/clutter/tree/build/autotools/as-compiler-flag.m4


-- 
W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name
B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi