From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9066: cleanup: remove conditional preprocessor code that depends on __STDC__ Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:56:59 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1310968746 11385 80.91.229.12 (18 Jul 2011 05:59:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 05:59:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9066@debbugs.gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 18 07:59:02 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qigr7-0004tQ-Pc for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:59:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58648 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qigr6-0001yt-H0 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:59:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42613) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QigqH-0001qs-Dw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:58:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QigqA-0007lC-RS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:58:09 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:44322) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QigqA-0007l4-Ir for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:58:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qigq9-0000t2-Ma; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:58:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Dan Nicolaescu Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 05:58:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9066 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug Original-Received: via spool by 9066-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9066.13109686273347 (code B ref 9066); Mon, 18 Jul 2011 05:58:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9066) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Jul 2011 05:57:07 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QigpG-0000rw-T1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:57:07 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QigpE-0000rU-Us for 9066@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:57:05 -0400 Original-Received: from dann by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qigp9-0007LC-Af; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:56:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Sun, 17 Jul 2011 02:36:36 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:58:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:49381 Archived-At: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: > Dan Nicolaescu writes: > >> The source now assumes standard C, there are a few places that test __STDC__, >> those tests are not needed anymore. > > I've had a peek at these, and they seem pretty trivial. > > But is the time for cleanups like this now, or should they wait until > after the next release? IMO, just wait until the next release, they are not worth the risk.