Re: Is 'for (int i = [...]' bad for C STD compliance reasons?

From: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date: Nov 14, 2021, 18:57 UTC
Message-ID: <YZFa3YDe1/a6uZod@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To: <211114.86zgq6si94.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>

On 2021-11-14 at 18:25:31, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> The issue on CentOS 6 isn't one of incompatibility with C99, but that
> the version of GCC refuses to compile C99 code without -std=c99 or
> -std=gnu99. See [1] downthread of one of your links.
> 
> But yes, it would be the first C99 feature where we have a known
> compiler that needs an opt-in -std=* option to support the C99 feature,
> I think.

Yeah, as I've mentioned in the past, the impediment to C99 features is MSVC. All Unix compilers support it because it's obligatory for POSIX 1003.1-2001, and they have for some time, even if it's not the default behavior.

MSVC recently learned C11, but I haven't fooled around with our CI enough recently to see if I can get it to use C11. I'll try to play around some more.

I should also point out that CentOS 6 is now EOL and not receiving security updates, and as such it shouldn't be a consideration in what we do and don't support. I think providing 10 years of support for an OS in our project is already exceedingly generous, and most other projects don't do so.

-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA