On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:11:33AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > > > Oh, absolutely. > > > > Here is another possible test balloon, that may actually be useful > > as an example. I think there is a topic in flight that touches this > > array, unfortunately, so I probably would find another one that is > > more stable for a real follow-up patch to the one from Peff. > > And here it is. > > As to other things that we currently not allow in our codebase that > newer compilers can grok, here is what *I* think. It is *not* meant > to be an exhaustive "what's new in C99 that is not in C89? what is > the final verdict on each of them?": > > - There were occasional cases where we wished if variable-length > arrays, flexible array members and variadic macros were available > in our codebase during the course of this project. We would > probably want to add a similar test baloon patch for each of > them to this series that is currently two-patch long.
FWIW, variadic macros have subtle implementation differences that can cause problems. For instance, MSVC only supports ##__VA_ARGS__ by way of ignoring ## somehow, but has the default behavior of dropping the comma when __VA_ARGS__ is empty, which means , __VA_ARGS__ *without* ## has a different behavior. See also https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/380090/variadic-macro-replacement Mike
