C99 structure initialisers and Samba3

tridge at samba.org tridge at samba.org
Wed Aug 23 21:15:08 GMT 2006


 > I agree, but this means we are now requiring C99 in Samba3.
 > I'm not sure we can go there just yet. (I know, if not now,
 > when ? :-).

I would not propose that Samba3 require all of C99. That would
eliminate far too many compilers. It might even eliminate gcc :)

I'm suggesting requiring only the features that actually make a
significant difference to code quality for Samba.  I think the use of
C99 initialisers is one of those.

Another possible compiler requirement to consider is to require a 64
bit int of some sort, to make NTTIME sane (not a structure). We
required this in Samba4 a while back, and I don't think we lost any
build farm hosts at all.

but yes, I am suggesting we drop support for compilers that don't have
C99 initialisers. I know its a pain to lose them, and I'd certainly
like to keep supporting them if we could, but I think the gains from
robust initialisers are worth the loss. 

Cheers, Tridge

More information about the samba-technical mailing list