Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Clarify if C89 is sufficient to non-test uriparser code #28

Closed
hartwork opened this issue Sep 27, 2018 · 0 comments
Closed

Clarify if C89 is sufficient to non-test uriparser code #28

hartwork opened this issue Sep 27, 2018 · 0 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Milestone
0.9.0

Comments

@hartwork
Copy link
Member

I reckon that uriparser may be fully C89 compliant but CI and docs don't say anything like that. So let's check if C89 is sufficient and if not if that's possible and wanted.
@hartwork hartwork added enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed labels Sep 27, 2018
hartwork added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2018
@hartwork
Address warning "ISO C90 forbids mixing declarations and code" (#28)
00a1f96 
.. in function NormalizeSyntaxMaskRequiredEx.
hartwork added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2018
@hartwork
ChangeLog: Mention #26 and #28
433041b
@hartwork hartwork added this to the 0.8.7 milestone Oct 10, 2018
hartwork added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2018
@hartwork
README.md: Mention C89 (#28)
87b70ef
@hartwork hartwork removed the help wanted Extra attention is needed label Oct 11, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Milestone
0.9.0
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@hartwork