Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Right C version for GCC
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:04:34 +1300
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <daccijFebevU5@mid.individual.net>
References: <n1nqt1$f3m$1@speranza.aioe.org> <da9r91FjinoU3@mid.individual.net> <3b4ddbaf-e356-4525-a0bf-318931ec5f24@googlegroups.com> <da9se9FjinoU5@mid.individual.net> <n1ogid$5vo$1@speranza.aioe.org> <daa384FjinoU6@mid.individual.net> <n1omm1$j4r$1@speranza.aioe.org> <daa612FjinoU7@mid.individual.net> <n1puer$9b5$1@speranza.aioe.org> <dac6p3FebevU2@mid.individual.net> <n1qp07$cq6$1@speranza.aioe.org> <dacc15FebevU4@mid.individual.net> <n1qu06$olv$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net KqWe9IU0QCAMKcw8nj9KegwOzpZAG+8hg3b84AmeHaP/XzYabi
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zi4TLP2K7gtGO7cAiJeoUsr83W8=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS i86pc; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
In-Reply-To: <n1qu06$olv$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:75504

Morten W. Petersen wrote:
> On 09.11.2015 20:55, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Morten W. Petersen wrote:
>>> On 09.11.2015 19:25, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>> Morten W. Petersen wrote:
>>>>> On 09.11.2015 01:00, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you prefer mixing declarations and code (the best addition to C99
>>>>>> IMHO), you need std>=c99.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You would be well advised to adopt the strict checking flags
>>>>>> recommended
>>>>>> in earlier threads.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I've got -Wall and -pedantic now, do I need anything else?
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the version of C, C90 is good enough for me.
>>>>
>>>> But not for your code...
>>>
>>> Well I'll adjust the code.  I don't see any benefits beyond C90 for
>>> this XML parser and then some project.
>>
>> If you don't see any benefits, why have you taken advantage of more
>> modern C in your code?
>
> It was an example posted here IIRC, which was neat.

Hang on, haven't we already established that your code requires C11 to 
compile?  You stated somewhere up-thread that you value mixed 
declaration and code (added in C99).

>> I wouldn't worry about Microsoft, their aim of C++14 compliance will
>> bring their compiler a lot closer to C99 compliance.
>
> Yeah, well I just hope it isn't difficult to support their compiler,
> seeing how they've played games before and wasted a lot of developer
> time.

They are publicly and practically committed to C++14 compliance.

-- 
Ian Collins