[Swan-dev] Add -std=c99 to the compiler flags?

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney at gmail.com>

| Perhaps there should be a separate discussion thread where we try to
| figure out the headers.  I suspect I'm even more confused.

We cannot fix the modularization while so many branches are flying
about.  Maybe we never have all the branches landed :-(

| Here though, just use normal functions, a performance is not an issue.

Agreed, I think.  I have no idea why ike_alg_get_hasher was inline,
but then I have done no research on that.

There are a number of surprising things in the code that "have their
reasons".

| While, Mr Mackey from South Park would claim "macros are bad m'kay",
| they do have their use.  The DBG macros for instance are a positive
| example.

Yeah, and being able to write the Bourne Shell in mock Algol 68.

One goal of the C++ process was systematize legitimate uses of macros
and absorbing them into the language proper.  I think that that is a
great goal.  (Some parts of that can be done by a compiler fairly
easily.)

Simple example:
	static int inches_per_foot = 12;
would be much better than
	#define inches_per_foot	12
if the language allowed both to be used in a constant expression.
Notice I said "language", not "compiler".

| > Clean up anything you stumble upon.  That's what I try to do.

| It will create a lot of entropy in the code making back-ports messier.

Yeah.  Death to long-lived branches so that we can do these kinds of
improvements.

| So, is -std=c99 in?

Yes.

| PS: According to that ever reliable source of information, Wikipedia,
| Microsoft skipped c99 and went straight for c11.

I didn't know that.

"skipped" connotes a rapid movement.  12 year?  I don't think so.