Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Allowing use of more C99 features

[Graham Bloice <graham.bloice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2 September 2016 at 09:03, Paul Offord <Paul.Offord@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Allowing the use of // for comments would be really useful as VS has a handy button for commenting out selected code and it prefixes each line with //

 

Like all decent editors should do.  For VS the keyboard combo is Ctrl + K, Ctrl + C.  Use Ctrl + K, Ctrl + U.

 

 

 

From: wireshark-dev-bounces@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Graham Bloice
Sent: 02 September 2016 08:54
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Allowing use of more C99 features

 

 

 

On 2 September 2016 at 03:51, Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 1, 2016, at 1:14 PM, Peter Wu <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Patch https://code.wireshark.org/review/17421 will allow use of some C99
> features in master (future 2.4):

For UN*X, with autotools:

        The AC_PROG_CC_C99 macro is used, and, if it fails to enable what it considers "C99 mode" for the compiler, the configure script will fail.  This means some older compilers may not be supported; it's probably time to drop those compilers.  The macro appears to try to enable it for:

                GCC (and Clang), using -std=gnu99
                IBM XL C, using -qlanglvl=extc99
                HP cc, using -AC99
                Intel ICC, using -std=c99
                SGI's C compiler for IRIX, using -c99
                Sun/Oracle's C compiler, using -xc99=all
                DEC/Compaq/HP's C compiler for Alpha on Tru64, using -c99

        so you're out of luck if you have a version of those compilers that doesn't support those flags and doesn't support all of:

                _Bool, // comments, flexible array members, inline, signed and unsigned long long int, mixed code and declarations, named initialization of structs, restrict, va_copy, varargs macros, variable declarations in for loops, and variable length arrays

For UN*X, with CMake:

        I'm not sure whether it'll properly enable C99 support for all of the compilers in question.

For Windows (CMake assumed), MSVC 2013 supports:

        // comments as long as you don't compile with /Za, but there might be a warning to suppress;

        flexible arrays, but there's a warning to suppress, which this change suppresses;

        inline functions - it might require __inline rather than inline, but GLib is #defining inline to be __inline with MSVC, so we can just use "inline";

        mixed code and declarations, but there's a bug that might or might not hit us:

                https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/808650/visual-studio-2013-c99-compiler-bug

 

That particular example seems to have been fixed, at least for me with VS2013 Update 5.

 

        named initialization of structs, but there's a bug that might or might not hit us:

                https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/805981

 

That particular example seems to have been fixed, at least for me with VS2013 Update 5.

 

        varargs macros, which we're already using;

        variable declarations in for loops, apparently:

                http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21696983/error-on-declaring-variable-in-for-statement

so, in addition to

> - flexible array members
> - trailing comma in enum declarations
> - inline function keyword

we also can use // comments and, apparently, variable declarations in for loops, assuming there's no bug that gets in the way.  *If* we avoid the bugs, we can also use mixed code and declarations and named initialization of structs.

 

 

--

Graham Bloice

______________________________________________________________________

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.

Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Advance Seven Ltd. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.

Advance Seven Ltd. Registered in England & Wales numbered 2373877 at Endeavour House, Coopers End Lane, Stansted, Essex CM24 1SJ

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Graham Bloice

Software Developer

Trihedral UK Limited