Re: [dev] st: Large pile of code

From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:32:54 -0700

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:23 AM, <random832_AT_fastmail.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013, at 9:32, Carlos Torres wrote:
>> I like the seperation of term.c from st.c, I agree that makes reading
>> st.c clearer. I can't comment on the removal of forward declarations,
>> typedefs and static vars though the resulting difference is legible as
>> well. (frankly code in alphabetical order makes me want to sort it
>> according to code flow and surrounding context...) i think the choice
>> of using the fontconfig utf8 functions was a good idea. I frowned
>> when you switched to 'gnu99' from 'c99' (i pictured a lot of flames on
>> that)
>
> If it _can_ be compiled in c99 mode, no reason it shouldn't be - then
> people can compile it using LLVM/clang, tendra, pcc, etc.

I switched to gnu99 for typeof() - it makes it possible to write min
and max macros that don't evaluate their arguments twice, and IMO is a
very worthwhile extension.

clang definitely supports it. I haven't tried compiling with clang yet
to check if it needs different arguments, but I'll do that.

> How hard is it going to be to merge these changes with what changes have
> been made to the main version since he branched off from it?

Probably the easiest way is just going to be to cherry pick all the
new upstream patches onto my branch one by one - shouldn't be that
bad. I may work on that tonight.
Received on Wed Apr 24 2013 - 21:32:54 CEST