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=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=tdDdnyvM/jkXlz8ClIlfxfVj/Wc0LQGzqD9Ple8Hbzo=;
	b=DpVkB+TNdAe8e47HD6uld5v4rO2wKrR5N376lBAT2zznefbz9KbHZQDEhbaoWUHBL4
	9RsBF+KI28UBbTMyLHmvPGV3hAkqhYhSWgOfYWYNjitoY+6/JH3IDydpgDbWbnv8sxs0
	M2jwsXVkkbHBDZVHxNggpyhUa1LiKFT2WbrlZcGKuHaiBB6tecE+XMCSEWevXlUTBAdc
	e3URngxUEvo5NEmdDbE1y5p2slRlaTIcAp1LnIGPRrDFrIVyYIuXKdIpBtW4b2Q8tVYS
	FEKyIeoSMH3w5i/gcZOzz2g4GjG3l9yNzTVoyfjDBh6yNTjghlkKDfFpnoYCiD2Sdv9M
	kYGQ==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.180.102.226 with SMTP id fr2mr31580187wib.3.1445375328744;
	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<20151020184943.GD16826@localhost.localdomain>
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>
	<20151020184943 DOT GD16826 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 21 Oct 2015 02:08:48 +0500
Message-ID:	<CABuVarJAvo8TDR9-PRHghp6A=xMDPniVaZaGAqmN9uuQJ6NHWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] C99
From:	"Sergey Stepanov (no DOT such DOT process AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
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

> Does it mean that functions related to C99 like 'hypot' cannot be used yet

This one is supported for years (or even decades) as an extension to
C89. There is one problem with it: if you use C89 and specific flags
to compile 'pure c code', you should turn on some defines before
`#include <math.h>`

> though now I cannot find that branch in the repo.

I just return it back after rebasing and testing.

2015-10-20 23:49 GMT+05:00 Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user 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 -