| Summary: | liboldX ansification | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | xorg | Reporter: | Paulo César Pereira de Andrade <pcpa> | ||||
| Component: | Lib/other | Assignee: | Xorg Project Team <xorg-team> | ||||
| Status: | RESOLVED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Xorg Project Team <xorg-team> | ||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||
| Priority: | medium | Keywords: | patch | ||||
| Version: | git | ||||||
| Hardware: | Other | ||||||
| OS: | All | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| i915 platform: | i915 features: | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
2008-03-05 09:57:50 UTC
Any code written to use liboldX is likely not ANSI-compliant itself. X version 11 came out before ANSI/ISO C89 did. (In reply to comment #1) > Any code written to use liboldX is likely not ANSI-compliant itself. > X version 11 came out before ANSI/ISO C89 did. Most of the "ansification" patches I posted are basically cosmetic changes, but some problems were also pointed. Cosmetic because it should generate 100% binary compatible code, as the prototypes are already ansified, and the patches just update the sources. BTW, I know in Mandriva there is nothing linked agains't liboldX. liboldX is a survivor, so many thing has been nuked over the time, and this library is still here. I think it is almost as old as xedit :-) Is there a good reason to not mark this WONTFIX? (In reply to comment #3) > Is there a good reason to not mark this WONTFIX? I think I never saw a bug that really deserved WONTFIX. If someone is recompiling some really old code, that also needs liboldX, this person should be using an ansi compiler. Otherwise, probably is also using liboldX from another source, and probably with another name. And probably also compiling the entire X Server, etc. But this is more of a cosmetic patch. If not droping it, then I don't think there is a strong reason to also not modify it from K&R to ansi, given that it doesn't use "promotable" function parameters. Patch doesn't correct any problems. The pseudo hash table (hashed by XID), and the bezier polygons interfaces are not bad, and should be significantly fast for sw only optimized applications. But I feel no existing application ever links with -loldX, at least this is the case of Mandriva packages... liboldX is for X version 10 compatibility - i.e. programs using it would be 5 years older than even Linus's first public release of Linux, and would have managed to survive almost 21 years now without being ported to libX11 - it seems highly unlikely any Linux distro needs it. (Even with our extreme backwards compatibility stance in Solaris, we don't bother shipping liboldX.) |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.