Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96849 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 87293 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2016 13:19:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Nov 2016 13:19:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:53738] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 85/92-35596-CF617285 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 08:19:57 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02E9C10C011; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:19:53 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:19:53 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Nikita Popov cc: PHP internals , Anatol Belski In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] C89 vs. C99 From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Nikita Popov wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Fleshgrinder 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 > > 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). I would want to write down in our coding guidelines that we should *NOT* do declarations after code, as you will no longer have an overview of all the types in one place anymore. cheers, Derick