Tridge did mention that this was the case at the SambaXP conference a couple of days ago . I don't
know that there's been an official announcement of that, though.

Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:38:12PM -0400, Marcin Porwit wrote:
Tridge did mention that this was the case at the SambaXP conference a couple of days ago . I don't
know that there's been an official announcement of that, though.
ok, thanks

Fri, 2005-05-06 at 13:43 +1000, James Peach wrote:
Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:38:12PM -0400, Marcin Porwit wrote:
Tridge did mention that this was the case at the SambaXP conference a couple of days ago . I don't
know that there's been an official announcement of that, though.

ok, thanks

C99 compilers are not too hard to find these days, and personally I find
the new structure initialisation method drives me far, far less
batty :-)

I believe the policy is that we require some C99 features.

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett wrote:
Fri, 2005-05-06 at 13:43 +1000, James Peach wrote:

>Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:38:12PM -0400, Marcin Porwit wrote:
>>
Tridge did mention that this was the case at the SambaXP conference a couple of days ago . I don't
know that there's been an official announcement of that, though.
>>
>>ok, thanks

C99 compilers are not too hard to find these days, and personally I
find the new structure initialisation method drives me far, far less
batty :-)

A quick check of the vendor compilers for commercial UNIX's shows
that C99 support has only recently become available for AIX 5 (with
the XL C/C++ compilers), IRIX 6.5 (with the MIPSpro 7.4 compilers
and the -c99 option), and Solaris 10. HP-UX and Tru64 do not appear
to have a C99 compiler

, GCC is available on pretty much all platforms, however GCC
typically doesn't work as well as the vendor compilers :(

So just a head's up that the new requirements will trip up a lot of
people and you'll probably want to seriously document this when
Samba 4 is finally released.

Michael B Allen wrote:
Michael Sweet said:

>>A quick check of the vendor compilers for commercial UNIX's shows
>>that C99 support has only recently become available for AIX 5 (with
>>the XL C/C++ compilers), IRIX 6.5 (with the MIPSpro 7.4 compilers
>>and the -c99 option), and Solaris 10. HP-UX and Tru64 do not appear
>>to have a C99 compiler

HP-UX's aCC compiler has a -AC99 option and Tru64's DECC has a -c99
option. I can't say I read the man pages on those options but I know they
invoke C99 compliance in one form or another.

Hmm, I'll have to check to see if we are up-to-date - HP's on-line
documentation doesn't mention anything about C99 support :)

Anyways, good to hear that C99 support is better than I thought! :)

Note there's a lot of stuff to "C99" that frequently isn't implemented
(even in the latest and greatest GCC) but the most common stuff is
supported by most modern compilers. The impact of requireing "C99" really
depends on what specific features are being used.

Yeah, I think it will be good to have the C99 requirements
documented