Do not depend on c99 for(int #719
Conversation
|
Why? It's a c11 project. |
|
It’s the only variable defined inside the for statment and pops a warning when compiling it from other projects that dont set c99 compat. I would appreciate it |
|
Yes it's the only change... for now. I don't mind landing the change, but I worry we'll have to find ourselves defending the inclusion of c11 features as a requirement in the future, when this project has set c11 as the requirement from the start. Why can't you compile QuickJS in c11 mode? |
|
R2 target build support for old compilers, i’m gradually deprecating some and i prefer not to add extra flags when compiling C code. For example visual studio only added support for c11 in 2022 iirc.. and r2 builds on windows xp and other ancient unixes like pre-2000 AIX systems that are still running nowadays. I would like to have workarounds for portability reasons if needed. But considering this is just the only thing that compilers complain it shouldnt really harm. I can have local patches if needed. But i totally understand the qjsng requirements, and personally from the coding style pov, definining variables inside the for statement always looked a like a c++ism to me. But anyway thats just personal needs that wanted to share, whatever you choose to do with the pr im fine :) |
|
I'm okay with landing this but it's at best temporary reprieve. I'm curious, what will you do when we merge something old compilers simply choke on? |
|
That’s a problem for my future self (: |
3 participants
No description provided.