Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:50:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Eldredge <neldredge@math.ucsd.edu> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de> Subject: Re: C99: Suggestions for style(9) Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0904280945100.1483@zeno.ucsd.edu> In-Reply-To: <20090428114754.GB89235@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <49F4070C.2000108@gmx.de> <20090428114754.GB89235@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2009-Apr-26 09:02:36 +0200, Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de> wrote: >> as some of you may have noticed, several years ago a new millenium >> started and a decade ago there was a new C standard. > > Your implication that FreeBSD is therefore a decade behind the times > is unfair. Whilst the C99 standard was published a decade ago, > compilers implementing that standard are still not ubiquitous. > >> HEAD recently >> switched to C99 as default (actually gnu99, but that's rather close). > > Note that gcc 4.2 (the FreeBSD base compiler) states that it is not > C99 compliant. However, if you take a look at http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/c99status.html , you will see that it is very close. The vast majority of C99 features are implemented and working correctly. Even those which are marked as "broken" generally work in most cases, and fail only in rather obscure corner cases that real programs are unlikely to encounter. In particular, the features Christoph proposes to use work fine. -- Nate Eldredge neldredge@math.ucsd.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0904280945100.1483>