[x264-devel] commit: Fix C99ism in r1066 (Jason Garrett-Glaser )
andrea.barbieri at movingimageresearch.com
Sat Jan 3 00:40:50 CET 2009
Guillaume POIRIER wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Loren Merritt <lorenm at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Guillaume Poirier wrote:
>>>> x264 | branch: master | Jason Garrett-Glaser <darkshikari at gmail.com>
>>>> | Thu Jan 1 21:38:33 2009 -0500|
>>>> [1e2f6d258df09874e2e0c85ef611f27d397555bf] | committer: Jason
>>>> Fix C99ism in r1066
>>> BTW, what's the coding guidelines about this? I use C99's mixed code
>>> with declaration in Altivec code, since all the compilers that are
>>> supposed to compile this code support C99.
>>> Are you avoiding C99ism for "cosmetic" reasons or because some
>>> compiler (I want names!) don't support it?
>> We were avoiding mixed code with declarations because msvc doesn't support
>> it. I history-editted to remove this revision because I'm dropping support
>> for msvc.
>> Feel free to argue with that decision, but know that I don't consider
>> "some devs use it and they have no choice" to be a sufficient argument.
> I simply don't care about MSVC so do as you please.
> We are already 10 years after year 1999 so I don't think it's too much
> to ask to require a "modern" compiler.
not even GCC is fully C99 compliant though even after 10 years...
"luckily" it covers the features that some (most?, all?) of the x264
developers like to use (which seems to be a sufficient argument ;) )
> For people who want to use Microsoft studio, it's always possible to
> use Intel's C compiler instead of MSVC since it's drop-in compatible
> with it.
Can you kindly point us to a free (non expiring and 'free' as the GCC
one) version of the Intel C compiler please?
More information about the x264-devel