Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124919
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPyj-LB11wiZyHV8=7fEs=J==tDO+m+z4qRsXRroPnqXzNZvvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9e1068ae-593e-40bc-91d7-dd63545d9e60@gmx.de> <CAAKU0ukMEAdCYQmti=aqM7QyjtnuzOx6fCd0aWGGf6EN3CRZBw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAKU0ukMEAdCYQmti=aqM7QyjtnuzOx6fCd0aWGGf6EN3CRZBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:11:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPyj-LCArhAARxFrCh+9C4T2oj=3EL1vy98+whuStjsBHJAMCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Require C11 in PHP 8.4
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: tovilo.ilija@gmail.com (Ilija Tovilo)

Hi Levi

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 5:56=E2=80=AFPM Levi Morrison
<levi.morrison@datadoghq.com> wrote:
>
> Given the timetable, I wouldn't change the C std requirements for 8.4.

Just to state it officially: You object to switching to C11 in 8.4? In
that case, we'll have to postpone.

> I would stop relying on the typedef and forward declare only the
> struct, and that. Note that although Windows supports C11, it does not
> support all features including atomics. Someone chimed in to say that
> they are available, but this doesn't match the information I got from
> a coworker who did a similar test. Given conflicting information and
> the short timetable, I think we should lean towards being cautious. I
> hope for 8.5/9.0 we can move to C11/C17 which can improve the typedef
> situation, simplify our atomics handling, and more.

I'm a bit confused about the relevance of C11 atomics. As I'm sure
you're aware, they remain optional in C17/C23. So, we'll need to
support a fallback, my suggestion was not to remove the fallback.

Essentially, code-wise, nothing would change if we adopt C11, except
being allowed to redeclare typedefs. Apart from that, only the
documentation would change.

Ilija