> but there's also no great urgency to remove them, IMO Agreed. Personally, I think this is a non-issue.
If Groff still uses backticks to support the (pre-POSIX) ancient Bourne Shell for Solaris 9-10, then we may as well remove those too if we're "modernising" the codebase... (I use "modernise" in this sense very loosely) On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:17, Colin Watson <cjwat...@debian.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 06:58:18PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Just to make what Keith says (and I concur) crystal clear: there's a > > need to distinguish between C99 compliance of the compiler and the > > C99/Posix compliance of the C runtime. We can assume the former, > > certainly when using MinGW GCC, but we cannot assume the latter when > > building a native MS-Windows port (as opposed to Cygwin port) of > > Groff. > > If it's just the runtime, then Gnulib should be able to paper over a > pretty fair number of the differences, and groff already uses that. It > may just be a matter of somebody who can do test-builds on Windows > making sure that we're importing the right set of Gnulib modules. > > (It's possible that some of the _WIN32 conditionals can be supplied by > Gnulib these days, but there's also no great urgency to remove them, > IMO.) > > -- > Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] > >
