On 11/13/2016 02:20 PM, Anatol Belski wrote:
moving to C99, we enable a set of new features not available with
> the ANSI C, that we need to internalize and accept.
Just following up here.
Perhaps it was not a good idea to fire a bug report at 7.0.14RC1 but
what is done is done. It can always
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: morrison.l...@gmail.com [mailto:morrison.l...@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Levi Morrison
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:47 PM
> To: Dennis Clarke
> Cc: internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] C89 vs. C99
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 201
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>> IMHO, if we decide to move to C99, we should do it the strict way
>
>
> I forgot to add that GNU GCC allows a lot of non-standard extensions to
> slip right through. Unless some CFLAGS are set to warn or error on them.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.
IMHO, if we decide to move to C99, we should do it the strict way
I forgot to add that GNU GCC allows a lot of non-standard extensions to
slip right through. Unless some CFLAGS are set to warn or error on them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-5.4.0/gcc/C-Extensions.html#C-Extensions
Denni
IMHO, if we decide to move to C99, we should do it the strict way
At risk of sounding bitter there really is no other way other than
"compliant" or "non-compliant" with very little grey area.
unlike we do now with C89. VC++ enables C99 the way it can't be
> turned off, but some parts are s
Hi Nikita,
> -Original Message-
> From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 11:58 AM
> To: PHP internals ; Anatol Belski
>
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] C89 vs. C99
>
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Fleshgrinder <m
On 11/12/2016 06:10 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
2016-11-12 11:57 GMT+01:00 Nikita Popov :
It's time to bring this up again. I recently noticed that nowadays only
Kalle fixes Windows build issues due to C99 declarations-after-code, while
Anatol doesn't. Am I correct in the assumption that Ana
Hi Derick,
Derick Rethans wrote:
I would want to write down in our coding guidelines that we should *NOT*
do declarations after code, as you will no longer have an overview of
all the types in one place anymore.
That's your preference. Personally, I would really appreciate the
ability to decl
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
>
> > I am curious why we are not finally doing the switch to C99 with VC14
> > finally supporting most of C99. I mean, I know that GCC and VC14 do no
> > fully support C99 but the most common featur
2016-11-12 11:57 GMT+01:00 Nikita Popov :
> It's time to bring this up again. I recently noticed that nowadays only
> Kalle fixes Windows build issues due to C99 declarations-after-code, while
> Anatol doesn't. Am I correct in the assumption that Anatol is using an MSVC
> version that supports the
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> I am curious why we are not finally doing the switch to C99 with VC14
> finally supporting most of C99. I mean, I know that GCC and VC14 do no
> fully support C99 but the most common features are implemented:
>
> - https://en.wikipedia.org/w
I am curious why we are not finally doing the switch to C99 with VC14
finally supporting most of C99. I mean, I know that GCC and VC14 do no
fully support C99 but the most common features are implemented:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99#Implementations
- https://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
--
12 matches
Mail list logo
