[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120831083418.GO1104@port70.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:34:18 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] inline cleanup/C89 support
* Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com> [2012-08-30 15:45:34 -0700]:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:53:16 +0200
> Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> wrote:
> > this won't work with c++, nor old strict c compilers
> > without __inline and __restrict and can break various
> > c parsing tools (ctags, swig, various lints, ..)
>
> 1. Do any of these "old strict c compilers" exist on Linux?
yes
(eg sdcc for microcontrollers, plan9 cc used for the go runtime)
> Are any of them worth supporting?
probably no
> 2. Have you tested those C parsing tools? Have they been updated to
> support C99?
>
i used some of them, i know ctags handles __restrict
while swig (1.3) does not
many of the c (and c++) parsing tools dont do correct
preprocessing or don't define all the macros like
__STDC_VERSION__ so even if c99 grammar is mostly
supported i wouldnt be surprised if doxygen or indent
or similar tools had problems with __restrict
> If it is a realistic combination (can produce a working hello world),
> then it *might* be worth supporting.
the headers are not only for compiling musl
of course glibc uses __restrict so it should work
most of the time
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
