"Secure coding" audit checkers and Kerberos

[Ken Raeburn]

On Oct 16, 2008, at 05:32, Simo Sorce wrote:
> After almost 10 years from C99 avoiding it would be just absurd if you
> ask me. If there are platforms that really can't cope with C99 after  
> 10
> years I honestly think nobody should consider using them as a KDC
> anyway.

Sadly, C99 compliance often isn't complete or default, even now.  And  
the compiler options for enabling C99 compliance sometimes turn off OS  
extensions; we need some of those extensions, which often require  
other, additional options.  And they're not necessarily something that  
can easily be tested for automatically.

Still, probably the biggest reason we can't start relying on a bunch  
more C99 stuff in our libraries is the lack of support on Windows.

Ken