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
>
