On 09.02.2024 01:44, Eric Raible wrote:
> Then, instead of adding a new API to support the
> "run without state"
> option better (as you suggest), we could just as well remove that
> option entirely, and have a simpler and more "lovely" API then ...
>
> What do you think?
>
I think
On 24/02/07 06:59PM, david.k...@libertysurf.fr wrote:
> All barely compatible with each other, unless you stick to C89. If so.
C99 is recommended by suckless movement, fully supported by GCC and LLVM/Clang,
and mostly supported by tcc and similar lightweight compilers (VLAs being one
of the
