X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:18:38 -0400
Message-Id:	<201510201818.t9KIIcFc016851@envy.delorie.com>
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<20151020180706.GC16826@localhost.localdomain>
	(geda-user AT delorie DOT com)
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] C99
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>
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

> 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.

- Raw text -