[GRASS-dev] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8
markus.metz.giswork at gmail.com
Mon Feb 1 13:24:57 PST 2021
A pity that Nicklas did not answer in this thread, see his answer in
I have not studied the different C standards and the state of their
implementation in different compilers and their different versions in
depth, and thus appreciate very much the summary of Nicklas!
IIUC, Nicklas recommends to allow C11 standard features in GRASS C code,
with no need to change the current code base, and all compilers in all
supported platforms apparently support C11.
+1 from me, as long as all stock compilers on all supported platforms
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 8:56 AM Moritz Lennert <mlennert at club.worldonline.be>
> Am 31. Januar 2021 22:15:53 MEZ schrieb Markus Metz <
markus.metz.giswork at gmail.com>:
> >On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:19 PM Moritz Lennert <
> >mlennert at club.worldonline.be> wrote:
> >> Am 29. Januar 2021 20:54:06 GMT+00:00 schrieb Markus Metz <
> >markus.metz.giswork at gmail.com>:
> >> >Hi Huidae,
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:30 PM Huidae Cho <grass4u at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Markus,
> >> >>
> >> >> I think we have to think about what benefits it would bring to us by
> >> >modernizing C code. Probably, not much at all. Personally, I would
> >> >as is because the minimum set of anything (e.g., ANSI C with no new
> >> >features) would probably be more portable, I believe. In other words,
> >> >are we missing from C99?
> >> >
> >> >as I mentioned, there is no need to modernize the GRASS C code. The
> >> >question is if we officially allow C99 features.
> >> >
> >> >For example a number of useful math-related functions and macros are
> >> >available with C99. See /usr/include/math.h on your system and search
> >> >C99. Also a number of features related to data types, particularly for
> >> >various int datatypes (stdint.h), become available with C99. And the
> >> >geographic lib in PROJ with src/geodesic.c wants C99. For new PROJ
> >> >versions, C99 is a requirement.
> >> If proj requires it, doesn't it automatically become a requirement for
> >GRASS as well ?
> >No, because the code base of other libs might have completely different
> >compile requirements. A software can use functions and libs of other
> >software packages, but does not need to follow the compile standards of
> >those other software packages, because they are compiled independently.
> Thanks for the clarification.
> In light of that I agree that we should choose the oldest standard
possible, unless we _really_ need something only present in a more recent
> @those who want to use more recent standards: what are your reasons for
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the grass-dev