Reuben Thomas wrote: > On 31 March 2010 18:04, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 03/31/2010 05:19 PM, Reuben Thomas wrote: >>> >>> The point about C89's age is >>> irrelevant; what is important is how well and widely C99 is >>> implemented, which, to put it mildly, depends on your perspective. >>> (Even GCC doesn't fully implement it, though thankfully the holes are >>> now pretty small and esoteric.) Making a program require C99, >>> therefore, relegates it to mainstream, modern systems. >> >> For this particular feature, the "flag date" is June 18, 2001 (when GCC 3.0 >> was released). It's still almost 9 years old. >> >> Are there any serious porting targets that do not support GCC 3.0? > > Nelson Beebe seems to think so: his builds of GNU Zile for me included > many platform/compiler combinations that only supported C89.
Nelson is providing a very useful service in general, but those c89-(without decl-after-stmt) compilers constitute a computer museum. On most (all?) of the systems for which he has vendor-provided c89 compilers, gcc-3 is also available. IMHO, a good indicator that a particular system is *not* a reasonable portability target is when fewer than two independent users care enough about it to report build failures. > I certainly haven't used a system that is a "serious porting target" > that doesn't support GCC 3.0 for many years, but my experience is > limited.
