From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tlaronde@polynum.com Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:47:34 +0100 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20101114114734.GA12958@polynum.com> References: <703b2539-027e-4f9f-a739-00b59f6d3d82@v28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <20101113192425.GC22589@nibiru.local> <20101114091030.GA793@polynum.com> <4CDFBF0D.1060604@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CDFBF0D.1060604@gmx.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 development Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7dc8d05a-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:50:53AM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > On 14.11.2010 10:10, tlaronde@polynum.com wrote: > > Furthermore, the auto* and libtool were typically made > > for trying to do something "working" to some extend with a chaotic > > source. They typically manage to compile "things" written by > > programmers who have been encouraged to look at the finger ignoring > > the moon: to concentrate on the "GNU" tools and "GNU" libraries > > etc, and not on C89 (or C99), POSIX etc. > > > > Heh. Pure C99 code (with no GNU extensions or OS specific stuff > whatsoever) doesn't compile with pcc unless you avoid some of the really > useful features and some of the standard headers. I can quote the C99 > standard if you doubt this. > I don't doubt this. But as long as you know what standard you do use, you know exactly the delta between C99 and C89, and you have two ways: whether providing a C99 "emulation" to insert between your sources and the C89 framework (this is the way I would do it with RISK); or add C99 support to pcc... As long as you know exactly what you do use, a solution is always at hand. When one is already beating around the bush in one's code, it is almost hopeless... Cheers, -- Thierry Laronde http://www.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C