Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

[Iain Hibbert <plunky%rya-online.net@localhost>]

On Sat, 14 May 2011, Marc Balmer wrote:

> What is the current state of C99 vs. older Cs?  Do all arches /
> compilers we have support C99?  I assume gcc, llvm/clang are safe, but
> what about pcc wrt C99?
>
> I'd like a short clarification here, since this might influence my
> coding...  tnx.

pcc is a C99 compiler (with some gcc compatibility) which is still under
development, though C99 feature support is complete.

pcc is capable of building large parts of userland (I am running with
/bin, /sbin and /usr/bin currently, and am going to install /usr/sbin
soon), plus i386 kernels though there are still bugs to track down (eg no
system crash but a build.sh failed, I think due to some corrupted files..)

I'm thinking that though we have some support for C99 in tree, the
'official' position is that llvm/clang and pcc are not yet supported (eg
there has been no such announcement of support, llvm/clang source is not
yet in tree and the in-tree pcc is a year out of date).

So IMO, apart from style issues (which it would be nice to update the
share/misc/style document with), it should be safe to use any C99 features
and, excepting some of the build tools which may be needed for
bootstrapping, I don't think its useful to restrict ourselves to an older
standard..

iain