Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:36:16 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@coosemans.org>, freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: c89 broken on head? Message-ID: <48120A0D-8A96-4D62-9C17-AE40E1DEF026@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <51390682.3020703@FreeBSD.org> References: <5138CD6B.2050309@coosemans.org> <5138EA4C.1060001@FreeBSD.org> <5138F6EF.6020203@coosemans.org> <51390682.3020703@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > ... >> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly >> be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can be >> expected to add -std=c11. > > I am not sure I buy that argument; if it were so, we should default to > K&R C instead, since "old code" (for some arbitrary definition of "old") > could never have been expected to know about gcc defaulting to gnu89. -std=c11 is defintely too new, but maybe c89 is too old. I thought the c89 program actually was mandated by POSIX, no? Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48120A0D-8A96-4D62-9C17-AE40E1DEF026>