On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 04:25:04PM -0500, George Spelvin wrote: > > That's a good enough reason; my only remaining objection is calling it > "a non-standard/non-portable GCC extension". Fair enough. Basically, e2fsprogs is targetting C89, and with the exception of inline functions (which is optional; e2fsprogs will build on compilers which don't handle inline functions, and it's only recently that I switched us over to use C99 inline functions instead of the old gcc's gnu89 inline declarations), as far as I know we're not dependent on any C99 language features. Because I tend to use a very conservative coding standard for porability's sake, I sometimes lose track of what's actually allowed by C99, and what's a GCC extension. BTW, I'll note that in C11 (ISO/IEC 9899:2011), VLA's have been made **optional**. Hence, even for programs targetting C11-compliant compilers, it's still not a good idea to use VLA's in your code if you are striving for maximal portability. Regards, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
