X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references
	:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
	:user-agent;
	bh=Jp//2CqUCIefjvczDJXV+lchgZzXHujY9Qkd+qm6VsA=;
	b=WQC6TBxHs+NlKpRK2S9KoPHOBnpDyPiA0IFV0mv/lqPEYe/VW9WZ9gbWJo8yoIR0Sp
	dSV5YKtR2BRN3DFdH8NfP+eWPMZOgT5AkvEZaeQv+p4PfMTuehVZ+ZK3dWac+OKzIn8K
	WA3yLeTwCAgLfrJ+zIZhb8lkMXF3xtBILH9kbtddtid5/cbtss0fvEDN712bz9rt7nmp
	voHCfT3VL+wcwn1pFx3Cdlnm54/+Wo73CprnnnnYbVopJ9KXDF2YlUaymExpocsOgmCi
	M5GAkBnF4OILXVn+mOQOQXDQaiw/gltZ3siVisRZYEIcfNJOoYeJNVOp1zzx7sXqGhmf
	PT4w==
X-Received:	by 10.25.26.146 with SMTP id a140mr1898398lfa.31.1445366985880;
	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:49:43 +0300
From:	"Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] C99
Message-ID:	<20151020184943.GD16826@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
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>
	<201510201818 DOT t9KIIcFc016851 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<201510201818.t9KIIcFc016851@envy.delorie.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
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

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:18:38PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> My only concern about C99 is that, despite appearing to be 16 years
> old, it's not.  GCC 4 still defaults to C89, you need to override the
> default or use GCC 5 to get C99 by default.
> 
> The big disconnect between C89 and C99 is the difference between
> "extern inline" and "static inline", GCC 4's interpretation is
> different than GCC 5's, so we should avoid those constructs during the
> migration.

OK, thanks for that.

Does it mean that functions related to C99 like 'hypot' cannot be used
yet (at least wikipedia mentions C99 as one of the languages supporting
it)? (I've seen them a while ago in a branch by Sergey Stepanov, our new
developer, though now I cannot find that branch in the repo.)

- Raw text -