On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 6:29 AM Petro Karashchenko < petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello team, > > Recently I mr. @Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> had a discussion > in one of the PR's related to C89 code compliance. Particularly related to > initializing a structure by field names (designated initializers). Mr. @Xiang > Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> pointed out that "for the common code it > is better to avoid C99 only features". > I examined the current NuttX code and see that currently common code is > far away from C89 already and things like "<stdbool.h>", "<inttypes.h>", > "snprintf", "designated initializers", "__VA_ARGS__" (variadic macro) are > deeply embedded into the code. > > We need separate the features that come from the compiler and the standard library. Since the libc is provided by NuttX self: 1. The header files(e.g.stdbool.h, intttyes.h) and function(e.g. snprintf) can be used in common code since NuttX can provide the implementation for all arch even the arch use a very old compiler 2. The preprocessor (e.g. __VA_ARGS__) or language( designated initializers) feature need to avoid or incorporate into the conditional macro . > I would like to come up with the suggestion to make C99 as a prerequisite > for the compiler that is used to build NuttX code. > As Greg said, if compilers used on all arch supported by NuttX support C99, there is no reason to limit us to C89. The compiler status is a keypoint. > > Best regards, > Petro > >
