Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:42:41 +0100
From:      David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Eitan Adler <eadler@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        soc-status@FreeBSD.org, Justin Edward Muniz <jmuniz@FreeBSD.org>, Matthew Windsor <mbw500@york.ac.uk>
Subject:   Re: GSoC Status: Week 11
Message-ID:  <440E5361-BC33-49DD-B51D-C77E9880BD1A@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgkK6HOY3ErR5T4coDO3ORGtzf5jN-gg13JbCSKU6vtTkg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAFxS2Cir5QMU2xKYbGpxSu5jLyEUs%2BBnEzv2stoNw%2BO=95Q_pA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF6rxgkK6HOY3ErR5T4coDO3ORGtzf5jN-gg13JbCSKU6vtTkg@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 Sep 2013, at 00:54, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> wrote:

>> As a minor note, I've pushed the C standard back down to C99.  This
>> should allow FreeBSD stock gcc to compile the backend.
>=20
> I'm not very worried about this.  If the code is cleaner with C11
> please feel free to use it.

Agreed.  If the code is destined to live in a port, then the only =
requirement is that it must be able to compile with a ports compiler.  =
Ideally, it should compile with gcc 4.7/8 in addition to clang (since =
clang isn't available on all architectures), but this shouldn't be =
considered a blocker.

Also, note that we have tried to ensure that most C11 features (with =
_Generic being the big exception) work even with our ancient GCC.

David




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?440E5361-BC33-49DD-B51D-C77E9880BD1A>