Re: [groff] Loss of MSVC support

[John Gardner]

> 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 <address@hidden> 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                                       address@hidden
>
>