Po Lu <luang...@yahoo.com> writes: > Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> writes: > >> And I would not want to see that happen either, nor do I think Florian >> would, or many of the other participants in this thread. >> >> Indeed, for some projects, where it's hopeless^Wlots of work, >> we're using -std=c89 or -std=gnu89 as appropriate - as already stated. >> >> But most things are easy to fix. >> >> Our interest is purely in making the default stricter for better UX, >> reducing the net amount of these bugs in the wild, and avoiding >> regressions when we fix these problems. Trying to remove C89 entirely >> would, if nothing else, be needlessly antagonistic, but some of the >> replies seem to act as if we have. > > But programs are not using c89 or gnu89, right? They are using gnu99 and > gnu11.
They're using > c89/gnu89 often because defaults have changed (a point others have raised, including Arsen and Eli Schwartz) even though they weren't intended to be compiled with newer C. A fair amount of other projects do explicitly ask for either c99/gnu99 or c11/gnu11 and if they're doing that, they shouldn't be getting something which was removed from the C standard. But if they really want it, they can either downgrade to C89 (rather drastic), or set the proposed -fpermissive.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
