From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi  Fri Jan  1 18:40:25 2010
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:38:36 +0100
From: Odd Skancke <ozk@atari.org>
Subject: Re: [MiNT] [Mint-cvs] [FreeMiNT CVS] freemint/sys/sockets/inet4
In-reply-to: <4B3E80FE.1070107@freesbee.fr>
To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi
Message-id: <4B3E877C.2050502@atari.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-PMX-Version: 5.5.3.366731, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.0.366912,
 Antispam-Data: 2010.1.1.232717
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100101-0, 01.01.2010), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
References: <201001011533.o01FXxwV032211@mail.sparemint.org>
 <1262366629.16683.1686.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <4B3E336F.5010502@atari.org>
 <4B3E349B.9030100@freesbee.fr> <op.u5u8rvicofd6j1@descaro.cpe.ish>
 <4B3E3C25.1000602@atari-source.org> <op.u5u9g3asofd6j1@descaro.cpe.ish>
 <4B3E486B.2010507@atari-source.org> <op.u5vb8rdzofd6j1@descaro.cpe.ish>
 <4B3E5FD9.9040508@atari-source.org> <4B3E71C5.9070803@online.no>
 <4B3E7ADB.6050506@atari.org> <4B3E80FE.1070107@freesbee.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; nb-NO; rv:1.9.1.5)
 Gecko/20091204 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
X-original-sender: ozk@atari.org
Precedence: bulk
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
X-List-ID: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
List-subscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=subscribe>
List-owner: <mailto:tjhukkan@fishpool.fi>
List-post: <mailto:mint@lists.fishpool.fi>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by mail.sparemint.org id o01NeOP0031760



Den 02.01.2010 00:10, skrev Vincent Rivière:
> Odd Skancke wrote:
>> vice versa, it will be very difficult keeping this under control via
>> #ifdefs within a single source tree. And I hate these kinds of #ifdefs
>> :-)
>
> What are those huge differences ?

  There are actually some differences. I seem to remember some 
difference in how arrays are declared between PureC and GCC .. but I 
dont remember exactly what it was. But if the differences are not huge, 
all the better.

> GCC 4.x is more picky than earlier versions, thus the code has sometimes
> to be cleaned up. But the resulting code should work perfectly on older
> compilers. Or except extremely specific cases.
> Am I wrong ?

  I really hope you are right. I dont know enough about the alternative 
compilers to make a correct statement here..