On 09/25/2010 03:31 AM, Davi Arnaut wrote:
> On 9/24/10 12:22 PM, Mats Kindahl wrote:
>> In this particular case, we would probably be better off if we could
>> turn on -std=c89, which disallows C++ comments in C code.
>> The downside is that it would of course mean that we have to start
>> writing standards-compliant C code (oh horrors!). :)
> I wish that overtime we could focus more on styles and actions, such
> as this, that have more practical consequences. Over time, discussions
> about the cosmetic aspects of coding style tend to get very silly.
Ah, yes... :)
> How about a proposal that new C and C++ code must be
> standards-compliant? That it must compile warning free? etc.
Oh, I would love that, but I wonder how that can be handled practically.
New code in separate files? Rewriting the files one by one?
It would be great if -ansi or -Werror could be enabled on a per-file basis.
> Do you have an idea of how much work is needed to make MySQL compile
> with -std=c89?
Sadly, yes. I did make an attempt to rewrite some aspects I disliked
(the cast of string literals to "char*", it didn't look like much work),
but it turned out to ripple through the code. If we could handle it on a
one-file-at-a-time basis, I think it could be done.
Just my few cents,