[ntp:hackers] Re: Anybody object to requiring AnsiC for building NTP?

mayer mayer at gis.net
Thu May 26 09:29:52 PDT 2005

----- Original Message Follows -----
> Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > Dave,
> > 
> > Folks with Old boxes may care, if they don't have either a working
> > gcc or a way to cross-compile (gcc can be built as a cross-compiler
> > and it's not terribly hard to do).
> > 
> > As for other definitions of "rarity", I'll note that after many
> > years of groundwork, C89 was standardized.  This standard was no
> > surprise to anybody back then, so compilers for it existed way back
> > then. 
> > For this to bite people, they'd have to be running OSes that are,
> > therefore, at least 16 years old (and this is way before Y2K
> > issues). 
> > Finally, I'll point out that if there are indeed folks who need this
> > they need to speak up and provide funding to maintain the code in
> > the way they want it.  Other than the funding you get for your
> > efforts, nobody is getting paid to work on this stuff and there is
> > definitely a cost to us to try and keep the code buildable by K&R (I
> > don't think we have any K&R systems at UDel anymore so we have no
> way to be sure anymore).
> I have to disagree with Danny and agree with Harlan here. The question
> of what compilers we support is not in the realm of the IETF WG.
> The IETF WG is dealing with the standardization of the protocols
> regarding NTP, while we are discussing a specific open source
> implementation thereof. As such, the maintainers (us!) can choose
> whatever specs we like regarding what we choose to support. We could
> even choose to disagree with one another and have different sets
> of criteria by forking the project (heavens!). Now, on the other
> hand, we are reasonable people and want to do the best we can with
> the time and resources available and at the same time want to
> provide the best code to the largest number of people, particularly
> our supporters.

Sorry, you misunderstood me, maybe because the original message was
a whole mixture of issues. Compiler specifics do belong right here
but Todd was really asking questions which belong more in the IETF WG
domain. I think we are all in agreement on this.

> So, to that end, is the savings in time and effort and the improved
> maintenance capability justify the abandonment of some subset of our
> constituents? And if so, what process do we use to abandon them?
> I suspect that it is only reasonable that we cut a decent milestone,
> place it in archive like xntpd is, and then rev the code and
> state that henceforth, AnsiC is required.

I agree. We can make the 4.2.1 release the final non-Ansi C standard


> -- 
> blu
> Due to heavy processing demand, we are currently using some of your
> unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any
> hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please
> avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Brian Utterback - OP/N1 RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
> _______________________________________________
> hackers mailing list
> hackers at support.ntp.org
> https://support.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers

More information about the hackers mailing list