Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96876
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain belski.net from 85.214.73.107 cause and error)
To: "'Levi Morrison'" <levim@php.net>,
	"'Dennis Clarke'" <dclarke@blastwave.org>
Cc: "'internals'" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <d04510ff-0624-c3a4-f53b-9cfe9027dee3@fleshgrinder.com> <CAF+90c-aJL94r4b7S7oKQw3AWbPBO+V_Lctv2JZpHvXnL9c4=Q@mail.gmail.com> <0ca001d23d21$e033ec40$a09bc4c0$@belski.net> <8520e864-1b65-18db-7ce6-7b99343e03e3@blastwave.org> <CAFMT4NrJ7fXLG0fJ=aNL3twv1KdsB9mr=KPcsx4=AsHwfy-=bQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4NrJ7fXLG0fJ=aNL3twv1KdsB9mr=KPcsx4=AsHwfy-=bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 20:20:02 +0100
Message-ID: <0f9201d23de2$f113de00$d33b9a00$@belski.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQIQtcipy2v88QjTT84++ZJcp8nomAJNLz/bAmCgYFEBiRb3NwF2t885oBzBdgA=
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] C89 vs. C99
From: anatol.php@belski.net ("Anatol Belski")

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: morrison.levi@gmail.com [mailto:morrison.levi@gmail.com] On =
Behalf
> Of Levi Morrison
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:47 PM
> To: Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org>
> Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] C89 vs. C99
>=20
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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-Exten
> > sions
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe,
> > visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>=20
> We are actually much closer to C99 than we are to C90. As proof of =
this try
> compiling with GCC with `-std=3Dc90 -pedantic-errors` and then try it =
with `-
> std=3Dc99 -pedantic-errors`. You have to make significantly fewer =
changes to get
> the C99 version working (or at least this was the case when it was =
last brought
> up). Also, ISO C90 and ANSI (C89) are essentially the same thing in =
case anyone is
> not aware.
>=20
Even without that - we already use inline, datatypes and macros, other =
things that don't belong to C89. We also use _declspec(thread) aka =
__thread which is not standardized at all. The GNU extensions, or VS =
features, or any other compiler specifics, are same as before. What =
matters, is the core C99 standard, or at least the part implemented in =
any known compiler, as some #ifdefs for platform/compiler specific non =
C99 features will always exist. While at the start, it'll probably be =
only to make the current source to rock with C99 compilers and to be =
able to use some syntax/semantic sugar, later contributions indeed using =
any possible other C99 features will appear. That's the point I actually =
wanted to make - moving to C99, we enable a set of new features not =
available with the ANSI C, that we need to internalize and accept.

Regards

Anatol=20