intel driver will only compile with gcc

[Daniel Stone]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:17:57AM -0700, Kean Johnston wrote:
> That code works only with a C99 compiler.

No, again, it does not require a C99 compiler.  gcc is not a C99
compiler.

> just as legibly

No, it is not as legible.

> The named initializer buys you absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Bar the legibility.

> The alternative, which works on just about every C compiler ever
> written, is to have 2 or 3 macros:

Which is horrific.  Truly horrific.

> I will freely admit its not as "pretty" or "elegant". I guess the X.org
> team needs to decide which is more important to them: pretty code or
> code that works for a significantly larger community,

So far, the only person who has felt put out, has been the UnixWare
maintainer (or whatever it's called this week).  And only after a few
months' pause: not even noticing the call for same on the mailing list,
and ensuing discussion.  I think 'significantly larger' is somewhat of
an exaggeration, given that it already works on anything with gcc (most
Linux/BSD distributions), anything using the Sun compiler, anything
using the Intel compiler, anything using the Microsoft compiler, etc,
etc, ad nauseum.

> I am hoping hat Keith and/or Daniel are reading this thread and can be
> persuaded to please drop that section of the C extensions document to help
> better serve the community.

Well, it's hard to respond to a thread you're not reading to, no? :) cf.
earlier responses.

Cheers,
Daniel
-------------- 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/20070612/966cb489/attachment.pgp>