Re: [ft-devel] C99, long long, and inline

[suzuki toshiya]

Dear Alexei,

I appreciate your continuous & huge effort to improve FreeType,
but sorry, my position is similar to the experts suggesting
to stay C89/C90.  I think there are so many FreeType2 users
who are working with small systems and forced to older proprietary
compilers.

Considering that FreeType has some assembly codes for some
platforms, I have no strong objection to insert special parts
for 64-bit platforms which are written in C99. However, I
think the default parts should be kept as compilable by C89/C90
compilers.

If FreeType3 with incompatible API change would be designed,
the migration to C99 would be a considerable option.

Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote:
>> The 'correct' thing to do (IMAO) is to use an int64_t (or ft_int64_t if you
>> prefer) type. On systems that provide int64_t, we have no problems. On
>> systems that don't provide it, then we can #define int64_t long long
> 
>  I mostly complain about -ansi option in the Makefile. It will
> complain no matter what you call "long long" or "inline".

Hmm, the improvement of the building system, or the splitting
the source code can solve the issue?

Regards,
mpsuzuki