Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96868 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 43549 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2016 20:37:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Nov 2016 20:37:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=dclarke@blastwave.org; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=dclarke@blastwave.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain blastwave.org from 209.17.115.45 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: dclarke@blastwave.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.17.115.45 atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com Received: from [209.17.115.45] ([209.17.115.45:52270] helo=atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C5/32-31581-88D77285 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:37:29 -0500 Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.77.35]) by atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uACKbPVQ010906 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:37:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 29087 invoked by uid 0); 12 Nov 2016 20:37:24 -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 20:37:24 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <0ca001d23d21$e033ec40$a09bc4c0$@belski.net> Message-ID: <8520e864-1b65-18db-7ce6-7b99343e03e3@blastwave.org> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:37:24 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0ca001d23d21$e033ec40$a09bc4c0$@belski.net> 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) > IMHO, if we decide to move to C99, we should do it the strict way I forgot to add that GNU GCC allows a lot of non-standard extensions to slip right through. Unless some CFLAGS are set to warn or error on them. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-5.4.0/gcc/C-Extensions.html#C-Extensions Dennis