Re: Cleanup of utilities, upgrade to C99?

["Kamil Rytarowski" <n54%gmx.com@localhost>]

Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> "Kamil Rytarowski" <n54%gmx.com@localhost> writes:
> 
> > I was looking at the code of our utilities and few things are unclear to me.
> > We are struggling for portability of the code, but does it mean that we are
> > struggling for being a portable code donor?
> >
> > By portable code donor I mean to use the oldest possible C (pre-)standard
> > with code variations for e.g. freebsd that was old already in 1996 and
> > I can't see the bug in the mentioned libc function in FreeBSD's SVN
> > in the initial revision from 1994 (what was their code before that?)
> > (memchr(3) usage note in strip_nuls() from ksh/misc.c).
> 
> My quick reaction is that rototilling for the sake of modernity when
> there is nothing demonstrably wrong isn't a good idea.  But things may
> be messy enough that there is some safety to be gained.
> 

Hello,

I agree with you with the case of 'sake for the modernity',

I have local patches against ksh to drop ~1000 LOC, which were dead code anyway.
Need more checking for regression and I will submit a patch set.

Regards.