From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24898 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2013 06:54:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 24873 invoked by uid 89); 18 Jul 2013 06:54:16 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 06:54:15 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Uzi6I-0002NI-Nj from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 23:54:06 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 23:54:06 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 23:54:06 -0700 Message-ID: <51E790DF.4030003@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 06:54:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: , Subject: Re: C99 References: <87wqoqi5yf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201307162122.r6GLMlMx012078@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <201307162122.r6GLMlMx012078@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 On 07/17/2013 05:22 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Perhaps it is time to move on and start requiring a C99 compiler for GDB. > But "//" comments are offensive to real C programmers!;) > > Seriously though. This points out that such a switch has some > consequences for our coding standards. We have a fairly consistent > coding style in GDB, which makes it easy for people to move around in > the codebase without getting distracted by the "looks" of the code. I > think it's worth some effort to keep it that way. And allowing "//" > comments isn't going to help. I'd vote for not using them at all. > +1. Probably we can move to C99 now. Personally, I prefer "/* */" to "//" in the comments. > However, a more important C99 "misfeature" that affects the coding > standard is the possibility to declare varaibles anywhere in the code. > We should not allow this, except for declaring loop variables in a > for() statement. I agree. -- Yao (齐尧)