Re: C89 vs. C99

2016-11-12 11:57 GMT+01:00 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>: > 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 necessary subset of C99, while Kalle uses an > older version that doesn't support this yet? If so, is it viable for us to > drop support for these older MSVC versions for master? I'd really like to > be able to use certain C99 functionality (okay, I'm only really interested > in declarations mixed with code). I use VC11, which is the compiler used for 5.6 builds, technically its on our list to drop support for in 7.2+ I think was the plan, while Anatol uses VC14+ mainly, which is the compiler used for 7.0+ builds. So technically I shouldn't really be using VC11 for 7.0+, but on my current small setup, I have only configured VC11, but I plan on fully upgrading to VC14 only soon, as 5.6 does not have much active development that cannot be done on VC14. According to Wikipedia: Visual C++ 2012 and earlier did not support C99. Visual C++ 2013 implements a limited subset of C99 required to compile popular open-source projects. Visual C++ 2015 implements the C99 standard library, with the exception of any library features that depend on compiler features not yet supported by the compiler (for example, <tgmath.h> is not implemented). And ofcourse the version mapping: VC11 - Visual C++ 2012 VC12 - Visual C++ 2013 VC14 - Visual C++ 2015 So as long as future developments are compatible with VC14, its fine with me -- regards, Kalle Sommer Nielsen kalle@php.net