Re: C89 vs. C99

<snip>

IMHO, if we decide to move to C99, we should do it the strict way

At risk of sounding bitter there really is no other way other than "compliant" or "non-compliant" with very little grey area.

unlike we do now with C89. VC++ enables C99 the way it can't be turned off, but some parts are still missing.

This is the case with gcc also. see https://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html However one can attempt to use -std=iso9899:1999 with -pedantic-errors as well but you need to know that assumptions are being made for " a recent version of the GNU C Library" being in use. This is a poor assumption. This may explain why I still prefer to use the obscenely strict and compliant Oracle Studio compilers on a Solaris system where the level of SUSv3 and POSIX rules are assured.

In case of GCC and other compilers, the -std=c99 should be enforced.

Along with -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS and -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 where with a very crisp c99 compiler. Most of these tools exist no where but on a classic UNIX commercial grade implementation. Sadly. Dennis Clarke