Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:46906
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.213 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=Mr76LH8hlnsj91TbDxCHY6GKrUj5D+qesyuxSekU/pBfuoxsn//VfskrsXv16Pbi9P
         NcV541gbVQzSiuMvbUhrfBIqINj8WnoOu8hQ/75wO+Sq1k1udPTxJ6W2+cDcHpSvC9GU
         XSNzokiVJKSqJQf48+DhX+crhzlLtMrIqR9Wk=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
In-Reply-To: <fe05d1541001290232x6ff5300bp4a64995f8ac0f56d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:26:20 +0300
Cc: David Soria Parra <sn_@gmx.net>,
 internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <54281CE3-1D88-467E-B02F-DEA7F4829A1D@gmail.com>
References: <fe05d1541001290232x6ff5300bp4a64995f8ac0f56d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/ branches/PHP_5_2/NEWS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/pcre/pcrelib/AUTHORS branches/PHP_5_2/ext/pcre/pcrelib/ChangeLog branches/PHP_5_2/ext/pcre/pcrelib/HACKING branches/PHP_5_2/ext/pcre/pcrelib/LICENCE branches/PH
From: indeyets@gmail.com (Alexey Zakhlestin)


On 29.01.2010, at 13:32, Pierre Joye wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Alexey Zakhlestin =
<indeyets@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As far as I remember, it was decided that C99 is ok for php6.
>=20
> I can't remember any decision about C99.

I remember some talk with andrei on irc=85 I guess we never wrote that =
down

>=20
>> Anyway, we probably need to compose some table on what compilers have =
limited (and how limited) support for c99.
>> Then we can objectively decide if we can leave those aside
>=20
> That's not a solution, or we kill solaris, HPUX, windows, etc.
> support. GCC does a very bad job here by enabling part of C99 by
> default and breaking the other half of the specs. Also C99 is pretty
> much a bastarized version of C++ in an incompatible way. The price to
> accept C99 is too high, especially when all we use (in 99.99999% of
> what the usages) is stdint/stdbool.
>=20
> Simply detect and define them at configure time will kill the need to
> use c99 and keeps us on the good/right side (what I do on win for
> example,easy) :)

you forgot about C++-style comments :)
Does Visual Studio support none of C99? I thought recent versions had =
partial support=