Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96841
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d04510ff-0624-c3a4-f53b-9cfe9027dee3@fleshgrinder.com>
References: <d04510ff-0624-c3a4-f53b-9cfe9027dee3@fleshgrinder.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 11:57:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAF+90c-aJL94r4b7S7oKQw3AWbPBO+V_Lctv2JZpHvXnL9c4=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b0e3c925dc20541187aa3
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] C89 vs. C99
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--001a114b0e3c925dc20541187aa3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Fleshgrinder <php@fleshgrinder.com> wrote:

> I am curious why we are not finally doing the switch to C99 with VC14
> finally supporting most of C99. I mean, I know that GCC and VC14 do no
> fully support C99 but the most common features are implemented:
>
> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99#Implementations
> - https://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
>

Hi,

It's time to bring this up again. I recently noticed that nowadays only
Kalle fixes Windows build issues due to C99 declarations-after-code, while
Anatol doesn't. Am I correct in the assumption that Anatol is using an MSVC
version that supports the necessary subset of C99, while Kalle uses an
older version that doesn't support this yet? If so, is it viable for us to
drop support for these older MSVC versions for master? I'd really like to
be able to use certain C99 functionality (okay, I'm only really interested
in declarations mixed with code).

Thanks,
Nikita

--001a114b0e3c925dc20541187aa3--