Re: C89 vs. C99

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org> wrote: > >> IMHO, if we decide to move to C99, we should do it the strict way > > > I forgot to add that GNU GCC allows a lot of non-standard extensions to > slip right through. Unless some CFLAGS are set to warn or error on them. > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-5.4.0/gcc/C-Extensions.html#C-Extensions > > Dennis > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php We are actually much closer to C99 than we are to C90. As proof of this try compiling with GCC with -std=c90 -pedantic-errors and then try it with -std=c99 -pedantic-errors. You have to make significantly fewer changes to get the C99 version working (or at least this was the case when it was last brought up). Also, ISO C90 and ANSI (C89) are essentially the same thing in case anyone is not aware.