On Sun, 6 Aug 2017, Ian Zimmerman wrote:

On 2017-08-06 14:39, Jeremy Harris wrote:
I'd like to start using designated-initialisers, which is a C99
feature.  We've avoided such things up until now, to keep backward
compatability.  Does anyone want to take a stance, pro or con?


Hmm. I'd not come across designated-initialisers before.
I see that they are not available in C++ before C++14 and not the same
way even then (I see something about strict rules on order in C++).
Also gcc allows a non-standard extension to initialising array *ranges*.
Designated-initialisers might be a difficulty for the occasional exim developer.

----

More generally:
on SL6, "man gcc" says:
       -std=
                ...                     ...
           c99
           c9x
           iso9899:1999
           iso9899:199x
               ISO C99.  Note that this standard is not yet fully
               supported; see <http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.4/c99status.html>
               for more information.  The names c9x and iso9899:199x are
               deprecated.

RHEL6/CentOS6/SL6 do have newer versions of GNU C, at least up to 5.3.1
which has "substantially completely support" for C99 and C11, so C99
would not be a complete disaster for these old but still supported OSes.

--
Andrew C Aitchison

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/

Reply via email to