Hi Levi On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 5:56 PM Levi Morrison <levi.morri...@datadoghq.com> wrote: > > Given the timetable, I wouldn't change the C std requirements for 8.4.
Just to state it officially: You object to switching to C11 in 8.4? In that case, we'll have to postpone. > I would stop relying on the typedef and forward declare only the > struct, and that. Note that although Windows supports C11, it does not > support all features including atomics. Someone chimed in to say that > they are available, but this doesn't match the information I got from > a coworker who did a similar test. Given conflicting information and > the short timetable, I think we should lean towards being cautious. I > hope for 8.5/9.0 we can move to C11/C17 which can improve the typedef > situation, simplify our atomics handling, and more. I'm a bit confused about the relevance of C11 atomics. As I'm sure you're aware, they remain optional in C17/C23. So, we'll need to support a fallback, my suggestion was not to remove the fallback. Essentially, code-wise, nothing would change if we adopt C11, except being allowed to redeclare typedefs. Apart from that, only the documentation would change. Ilija
