Hi, What about inline functions? Those are also a part on C99.
Are those old architectures checked by the CI? I mean do we have a proof that those are still compilable with the latest release? Best regards, Petro On Sat, Jan 8, 2022, 6:37 AM Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 >> >>
