Re: C99
- From
brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
- Date
- Apr 4, 2015, 20:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20150404203612.GD10125@vauxhall.crustytoothpaste.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqtwwvejzg.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 01:06:43PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes: > > > So it isn't as much of a "we don't want to move to C99" as much as "we > > aren't yet willing to drop support for older versions of MSVC". > > I do not particularly like that 'we' in that sentence, which would > give a false impression to people that we all want to switch and > MSVC is the only thing that is holding us back.
Okay, I should have clarified my statement. I appreciate the correction.
Some people would like to move to C99, and so far the major objections I've heard have been that MSVC doesn't support it and that C99's benefits are unclear. I didn't meant to speak for others in that we should or should not, and there might be other objections I don't recall or haven't heard.
I seem to recall Peff wanting to use variadic macros at some point, although I can't recall specifically where. We also already use hacks to implement some of the features and hope that compilers will DTRT.
All the major compilers I'm aware of other than MSVC support C99, at least well enough to do the things we'd likely end up doing.
-- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187