Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:21:07 +0000 From: Matthew Windsor <mbw500@york.ac.uk> To: David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org> Cc: Justin Edward Muniz <jmuniz@freebsd.org>, soc-status@freebsd.org, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GSoC Status: Week 11 Message-ID: <CAFxS2CiHBj2BzDGMDQHU7qwsURHHWYNuSYk=EpWH_SWjTwYF3A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <440E5361-BC33-49DD-B51D-C77E9880BD1A@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAFxS2Cir5QMU2xKYbGpxSu5jLyEUs%2BBnEzv2stoNw%2BO=95Q_pA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF6rxgkK6HOY3ErR5T4coDO3ORGtzf5jN-gg13JbCSKU6vtTkg@mail.gmail.com> <440E5361-BC33-49DD-B51D-C77E9880BD1A@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On 2 September 2013 07:42, David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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. >> >> 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 require= ment 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 avai= lable on all architectures), but this shouldn't be considered a blocker. It's fine, the only feature I was using from C11 was anonymous unions, and the code that used them has since been stripped out, so there isn't any reason to identify as C11. (Besides, I think anonymous unions are a GNU extension to C89/C99 anyway - I'm sure I've seen pkgng using them somewhere and I assume pkgng isn't C11, but I could be wrong) > Also, note that we have tried to ensure that most C11 features (with _Gen= eric being the big exception) work even with our ancient GCC. I'm not sure if I was doing something wrong, but when I tried to compile with --std=3Dc11 on GCC (4.2.1, FreeBSD 9) I got 'cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-std=3Dc11"'. This worked fine with clang. But anyway, the code appears to compile fine as C99 and as mentioned I didn't need to make any regressions, so I'll probably keep it at c99 until and unless I need to use a C11 feature again. ~Matt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFxS2CiHBj2BzDGMDQHU7qwsURHHWYNuSYk=EpWH_SWjTwYF3A>