Named initialisers and other hilarity

[Daniel Stone]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:24PM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
> >I was diving through some KDrive code today and it annoyed me enough to
> >wonder seriously about named initialisers.  A quick straw poll on IRC
> >suggests that we really want named initialisers, inlines (goodbye
> >hundred-line macros of despair), mixed code and declarations[0], and
> >variadic macros (goodbye DPRINTF((x))).
> >
> >Are there any platforms that either support 7.x, or will realistically
> >support 7.x quite soon, that don't support these features?  Full C99
> >compliance is uninteresting since a) the features aren't that
> >interesting, and b) gcc doesn't even do it; but mandating those four
> >specific features would be magic.
> 
> Some of our (OpenBSD) architectures still use gcc 2.95. Please don't use 
> features that aren't supported by this compiler.

_X_INLINE will expand to nothing at all on these compilers, then, but
I'm really quite staggered that people still use 2.95 ...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20060921/f3dd0dec/attachment.pgp>