I don't see a *substantial benefit* from going to C99 and I've worked on
numerous embedded platforms where it is highly unlikely that C99 support
will ever be available.

Kurt - do you have a specific list of features you think would be
beneficial - or is it just a general sense to move forward?

We should ensure that C++ builds work - but that is mostly simply keyword
avoidance - but sticking with the base C89/C90 in my experience is still a
reasonable position.

For Microsoft reading
https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/fa17bcdd-7165-4645-a676-ef3797b95918/details-on-c99-support-in-msvc?forum=vcgeneral
and
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2013/07/19/c99-library-support-in-visual-studio-2013/
may
assist.

I know there are Microsoft platforms that require use of earlier compilers
than VS2013 to support (unfortunately).

Tim.


On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 11:33 PM Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 02:01:36PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Unfortunately Microsoft still does not support C99, I believe. Or did
> that get fixed eventually, in a version that can reasonably be required?
>
> That is a very good point, and they never intend to fix that.
>
> So would that mean we say that VC will be unsupported? Or that we
> should make it so that it can be build using C++?
>
>
> Kurt
>
> _______________________________________________
> openssl-project mailing list
> openssl-project@openssl.org
> https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
>
_______________________________________________
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project

Reply via email to