Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96862
Return-Path: <dclarke@blastwave.org>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 33905 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2016 19:52:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 12 Nov 2016 19:52:32 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=dclarke@blastwave.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=dclarke@blastwave.org; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain blastwave.org from 209.17.115.46 cause and error)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: dclarke@blastwave.org
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.17.115.46 atl4mhob08.myregisteredsite.com  
Received: from [209.17.115.46] ([209.17.115.46:35724] helo=atl4mhob08.myregisteredsite.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id B7/30-31581-FF277285 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 14:52:31 -0500
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.77.36])
	by atl4mhob08.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uACJqRbF012814
	for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 14:52:28 -0500
Received: (qmail 8245 invoked by uid 0); 12 Nov 2016 19:52:27 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 99.253.103.29
X-Authenticated-UID: dclarke@blastwave.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ?172.16.35.41?) (dclarke@blastwave.org@99.253.103.29)
  by 0 with ESMTPA; 12 Nov 2016 19:52:27 -0000
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <d04510ff-0624-c3a4-f53b-9cfe9027dee3@fleshgrinder.com>
 <CAF+90c-aJL94r4b7S7oKQw3AWbPBO+V_Lctv2JZpHvXnL9c4=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJW__o0CXuihQkrpW1UH65KW1nPjcbmwLbq4rpo-CCeakTSD5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1d13f91a-b140-0b02-83a0-e7a357c05b3a@blastwave.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 14:52:26 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJW__o0CXuihQkrpW1UH65KW1nPjcbmwLbq4rpo-CCeakTSD5w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] C89 vs. C99
From: dclarke@blastwave.org (Dennis Clarke)

On 11/12/2016 06:10 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> 2016-11-12 11:57 GMT+01:00 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>:
>> 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?
 ><snip>
> According to Wikipedia:
> Visual C++ 2012 and earlier did not support C99.
> Visual C++ 2013 implements a limited subset of C99 required to compile
> popular open-source projects.
> Visual C++ 2015 implements the C99 standard library, with the
> exception of any library features that depend on compiler features not
> yet supported by the compiler (for example, <tgmath.h> is not
> implemented).

I will run a build test on a Solaris 10 server with Oracle Studio 12.4
as well as 12.5 using the very strict c99 compiler with option -Xc and
define -D_XOPEN_SOURCE 600.  This will enforce compliance rules as well
as feature test macros for The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6
IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 Edition.  Where we get into deep trouble is the
use of extensions which may be purely gnuisms or gccisms. These all
become very evident once a strict compiler set of options are used. I
will get it a run through and see what I see.

Dennis Clarke