Thoughts on -std=c11
a.cudbardb at freeradius.org
Wed Dec 3 18:34:48 CET 2014
> On 3 Dec 2014, at 11:58, Matthew Newton <mcn4 at leicester.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 11:39:07AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Matthew Newton <mcn4 at leicester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Just like the multitides of "I'm using 2.1.12" now :(
>> Which is exactly my problem. You can stick with an old
>> version, and get no upgrades, or you can upgrade to get new
>> It is *highly* unproductive to support systems which are 5-6
>> years old.
> Oh, I highly agree; just predicting what will happen.
> My personal opinion right now is to have a clear "we do not
> support FR < 2.2.x" on the web site, and refuse to answer any
> questions until people upgrade. The questions about 1.x and 2.1.12
> get pretty annoying.
> In fact, maybe 1.1.8 should be removed from the front page and
> download pages of freeradius.org as well. It looks like it's still
> a valid version.
> But in terms of -std=c11 in 3.1+, go for it.
Arran Cudbard-Bell <a.cudbardb at freeradius.org>
FreeRADIUS development team
FD31 3077 42EC 7FCD 32FE 5EE2 56CF 27F9 30A8 CAA2
More information about the Freeradius-Devel