Re: [ft-devel] C89 vs C99

[suzuki toshiya]

>> And, I'm afraid some legacy platforms in builds lack C99-savvy
>> compilers.  They should be dropped?
>
> Probably yes.  C99 is 15 years old...

Umm. Yet I've not checked how many platforms in
builds directory could move to C99 sources, so
at present it's difficult for me to comment.
Maybe I should consider the possibility to extend
FreeType building system to support C99-to-C89
convertor.

Could you tell more about the advantages of C99 for
FreeType, or, the disadvantage to keep C89?

Regards,
mpsuzuki

Werner LEMBERG wrote::
> > APIs would be kept to use C89-compatible types, but C99-only types
> > are used in internal part?
>
> Yes.  No API changes.
>
> > Some people may want to see the types like int32_t, int16_t...
>
> For the API you mean?  Certainly, but this would be FreeType 3...
>
> > And, I'm afraid some legacy platforms in builds lack C99-savvy
> > compilers.  They should be dropped?
>
> Probably yes.  C99 is 15 years old...  However, I favor the autoconf
> style of testing features (e.g., for the presence of a `long long'
> type), so a compiler doesn't necessarily need to support full C99, but
> only a (rather small) subset.
>
>
>     Werner