Subject: coding standards vs. HP-UX (was Re: [owner-abiword-dev@abisource.com: BOUNCE abiword-dev@abisource.com: Non-member submission from [jacob berkman
At 12:04 PM 5/3/01 -0500, Sam TH wrote:
Maybe so. :-)
However, rather than form a firing squad, we'd probably be better off
For example, we already include a reference to the Mozilla team's guide to
http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/portable-cpp.html
In particular, many of the recommendations listed there help make code safe
Our stance to date has been that we *want* to see more compilers grinding
Paul,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25
: Sat May 26 2001 - 03:51:01 CDT
From: Paul Rohr (paul@abisource.com)
Date: Thu May 03 2001 - 12:30:23 CDT
>Lots o' patches. Obviouly, the HP compiler developers need to be
>taken out and shot. :-)
updating our coding standards so we know not to use any of those problematic
idioms in the future.
XP-safe coding techniques, but perhaps it should be more prominent:
for, you guessed it -- the HP-UX compiler. ;-)
away on our code because the more of them we can satisfy, the cleaner our
code will become.
envisioning N versions of lint in parallel