[sane-devel] epsonds won't build with is_release=yes

Olaf Meeuwissen paddy-hack at member.fsf.org
Mon Oct 12 12:07:01 UTC 2015

Hi Devs,

m. allan noah writes:

> I think we should switch to C99 now.
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Alessandro Zummo
> <azummo-lists at towertech.it> wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:59:56 +0900
>> Olaf Meeuwissen <paddy-hack at member.fsf.org> wrote:
>>> I don't understand why during development with gcc -std=c90 (aka -ansi)
>>> is in effect but when we release we no longer care and allow whatever
>>> the compiler thinks is good for you.  In case of gcc that is -std=gnu90
>>> or, as of gcc-5, -std=gnu11.
>>  Now that it's released, can we switch to c99, if not c11? :)

You won't hear me complain about switching to C99 (*without* GNU
extensions in the interest of portability).  Switching to C11 is
probably still a bit too early (although I don't mind).

However, before we decide to switch, wouldn't it be a good idea to list
the "overwhelming" benefits of switching and "disabling" drawbacks of
not doing so?  Here's something to get started:

 - allows declarations after statements (which I consider a mixed
 - allows C++-style // comments (not sure if they are also allowed in
   C preprocessor code though)
 - has snprintf()
 - additional standardized headers (which ones?)

 - ISO has withdrawn C99 (in favour of C11)

Also, if there's developers out there that object, now is probably a
good idea to do so.

Hope this helps,
Olaf Meeuwissen, LPIC-2            FSF Associate Member since 2004-01-27
Support Free Software               Support the Free Software Foundation
https://my.fsf.org/donate                        https://my.fsf.org/join
 GnuPG key: F84A2DD9/B3C0 2F47 EA19 64F4 9F13  F43E B8A4 A88A F84A 2DD9

More information about the sane-devel mailing list