Re: [dev] [ubase] [PATCH] Bring back C89/C90

From: Dimitris Papastamos <sin_AT_2f30.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 17:44:14 +0100

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 06:32:50PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 16:31:47 +0100
> Dimitris Papastamos <sin_AT_2f30.org> wrote:
>
> > uint_least64_t is C99.
>
> Well, it's your choice to take it or not. If you don't like it, you can
> implement the changes to the inherent variable-declarations in the
> middle of blocks only to at least get the separation right.

I don't understand.

I will accept some of your changes without reverting to C90.

stdint.h and inttypes.h are *not* C90.

declaring variables in the middle of the block is not my practice.
I am not embracing all features of C99, I use a mix of C90 and C99
without sacrificing portability (as far as I can).
Received on Wed Jun 04 2014 - 18:44:14 CEST