Re: C89 vs. C99

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Nikita Popov wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Fleshgrinder <php@fleshgrinder.com> 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/wiki/C99#Implementations > > - https://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html > > 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 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. cheers, Derick