intel driver will only compile with gcc

[Daniel Stone]

On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:59:47AM -0700, Kean Johnston wrote:
> Now that I read it more closely, that whole section is "bogus". Nothing
> else in the code (at least not that is activated by a non-C99
> compiler) is using named initializers either. That section is a bad
> idea no matter how you slice it. Neither of those two "mandatory"
> extensions really buy you very much except for a tiny bit of readability
> at the expense of cutting out a whole slew of compilers. Can that whole
> section simply be removed?

hw/kdrive/ uses named initialisers pretty heavily.  Does SCO's compiler
actually lack named initialisers?  Do you have any plans to add it?

<20060919233350.GC15817 at fooishbar.org> showed no indication from anyone
other than two OpenBSD platforms[0], that using either named
initialisers or variadic macros was a problem.  So I think it's a fairly
long shot to say that it's 'bogus', when no-one complained at the time,
nor in the eight months and one day since it's been added.

Also, we're not talking about C99: we're talking about two very specific
features, that happen to be in C99.  gcc is not a full C99 compiler, yet
it (and a few others, including Sun's compiler, and Intel's) still
manage to support it.

Cheers,
Daniel (author of that particular document)

[0]: TTBOMK, the only OpenBSD platforms still on 2.95 are vax and m68k,
     the former of which doesn't even have shared library support.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20070609/bb52e3f0/attachment.pgp>