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?
W
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
In message <20181007124854.ga3...@roeckx.be> on Sun, 7 Oct 2018 14:48:55 +0200,
Kurt Roeckx said:
> We're currently still targetting C89/C90 + long long, yet use
> various features of C99 and even some C11 when it's available.
>
> C99 is now almost 20 years old, can we please move to at least
>
Hi,
We're currently still targetting C89/C90 + long long, yet use
various features of C99 and even some C11 when it's available.
C99 is now almost 20 years old, can we please move to at least
that?
Kurt
___
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-projec
