[SDL] SDL 2.0 ABI locked

Alexey Petruchik i100500 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 19 07:15:07 PDT 2013

> If every library defined the stdint types in the case of missing stdint.h, every library's header would conflict
That's why we have HAVE_STDINT_H define for. And I note again that SDL
already defines stdint.h types and SDL types are just aliases for
them. So removing SDL integer types has nothing to do with conflicts
in multiple stdint.h types declarations.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Zoltán Kócsi <zoltan at bendor.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:29:35 -0700
> "Nathaniel J Fries" <nfries88 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Assuming SDL is meant to be compatible with the earliest C standard,
>> C89, then assuming stdint exists is bad behavior.
> OK, let me be the Devil's advocate. Why should it target C89? It is
> a library released *now*, targeting devices which were not even dreamt
> of in '89.
> As a matter of fact, you arbitrarily say C89. How about the C before
> that? You know, the one without function prototypes. Why do you assume
> that I use anything more than the original K&R book, which *was* the
> de-facto C standard back then? I might even fancy the original C, where
> += was =+ (which caused a parsing ambiguity but was fixed before the
> first K&R book, so it's not well known), how about that?
> I am actually serious. Why do you draw the line at 24 years? Why not
> anything before? I most certainly have programmed in C way before
> ANSI-C (aka C89) came out. I might even have some old C compiler
> incarnations somewhere, although I could not run them without some
> emulator, even if I could find an old floppy drive and built an
> interface card to actually read them.
> I'm all for backward compatibility and really hate when old programs
> don't run on new systems, especially when the new system is *supposed*
> to be functionally identical and backward compatible.
> However, SDL 2.0 is a *new* library, which is *not* backward compatible
> with its old incarnation, despite the similarities. The lack of
> backward compatibility is explicitly stated as an intentional decision.
> Thus, I think the library can set the minimum acceptable HW, OS and
> compiler level to whatever is deemed practical. SDL-1.2 is still there,
> if you need true backward compatibility. If you want HW accelerated
> rendering and OpenGL stuff, then you have to pay the price of using a
> compiler not older than 14 years.
> Zoltan
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL at lists.libsdl.org
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

More information about the SDL mailing list