X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Ironport-SBRS:	None
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered:	true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:	A2HwBwAMiiZW/52AA4BdgzYfNW+CXLtUgVohhX0CgUA6EgEBAQEBAQEDgQeCWzwBAQEBAQEjAjoyAQEEOk8LGAkTEg8FDTwTGYgCAxIFCL5rDYR+AQEIAgEghneEfoJQgkSDGoEUBY4HiB2LKYFulF2HTCgDOIQjHjSFZwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV:	E=Sophos;i="5.17,708,1437462000";
	d="scan'208";a="2744743"
Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:41:44 -0700
From:	Larry Doolittle <ldoolitt AT recycle DOT lbl DOT gov>
To:	"Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] C99
Message-ID:	<20151020184144.GA17357@recycle.lbl.gov>
References:	<CAC4O8c9rjGEsy6NP8kFz5jKRy51NOndbhU37gUa_Om70qbxVKg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CABuVarJiWLMNh+cMcNF4vpv3aAm-eHKazu+i=F00WcBWF_=Oag AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAC4O8c8n7RdxJ6Diq7UYkQAka16zwVQ_E+Wr0JGbiy3_VQw0jw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20151019205802 DOT GA6798 AT recycle DOT lbl DOT gov>
	<20151020180706 DOT GC16826 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20151020180706.GC16826@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Vladimir -

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:07:06PM +0300, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 01:58:02PM -0700, Larry Doolittle wrote:
> > -O2 -Wall -Wextra -Wshadow -pedantic --std=c99
> > and the --std=c99 part explicitly allows declarations after statements.
> > I don't know what to suggest if a compiler doesn't follow an ISO standard
> > 16 years after it's published.
> 
> Probably I have an opportunity to ask a question about the C99 standard :)
> Are any issues mentioned at [1] still relevant? Could any issues appear if
> we start to support it?
> [1] http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/2/23/194544/139

I don't see anything there that is a problem for people writing
production code.  Except for the compiler availabilty thing, and
I'm pretty sure that has gotten (slowly) better over the last
14 years.

My personal experience with C99 vs. C89 is that a much larger faction of
a project's code base can be categorized as portable, standards-compliant
code when using C99.  Several of the features called out there, like
"long long", variable macro agruments, variable length arrays, are things
that used to require non-standardized syntax and compiler features, but
represent functionality that real-life code sometimes needs (or at least
really really wants to use).

  - Larry

- Raw text -