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
