On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 01:12:17AM +0100, Branko Uibej wrote:
> Sam TH wrote:
>
> > The problem is with the const. I couldn't find anything about the
> > standard either way in a quick Google search.
>
> Conversion from non-const -> const is implicit and always allowed. If MW
> is so strict as to flag that as an error, then I'm sorry to say that it
> isn't a C compiler. :-(
Fortunately, it turned out that those const casts were *not*
neccessary, and a mistaken report on my part. See
<20001203043555.B10844@uchicago.edu>.
>
> I'm a bit concerned about all these casts going into the codebase (yeah,
> we've had this discussion before). GCC is not lenient about type
> conversions, either, and it wasn't complaining.
>
I think Greg converted almost all of the casts into different
defitions of either the variable or the function in question. So you
neednt worry.
> Would it be very terrible to require GCC for building Subversion, for
> development, that is? Right now it won't compile out of the box with IBM
> xlc on AIX, HP cc on HP-UX or Sun's Workshop cc on Solaris, so why
> should we start peppering the code with casts just to cater to MW? GCC
> should run quite nicely on BeOS.
>
> Certainly we'll need to support the various native compilers for 1.0,
> but this is /not/ the way to do that. Whatever portability support we
> need must be provided by APR and, failing that, by our own configure tests.
But when, precisely, are you willing to change the code to work on
other compilers? GCC probably would run nicely on that machine, but
1) it has a limited hard disk, most of which is used, and 2) just
running the APR configure on it take about 15 minutes. So putting GCC
on it would be quite a bit of effort.
Conversely, why exactly is it important to be able to do implicit
casts on the signedness of characters, for example? Wouldn't it make
more sense to write code that doesn't require those casts? And is it
really so difficult not to use unimlemented parts of the C99 standard?
For the linux kernel, I see why they are willing to be GCC only. But
I don't see the need, or the benifit, with Subversion.
My 2c.
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:16 2006