Re: Proposal: change requirement for tools from C89 to C99
PHO <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.devel.toolchain |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I'm all for switching to C99! "int i; for (i = 0; ..." have always made me anxious! On 2/2/22 6:36 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 14:53, Roland Illig <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Am 31.01.2022 um 11:14 schrieb Robert Elz: >>> I don't follow C standards. What are the c99 features we'd >>> want to use in tools that don't work in c89? [snip] >> >> * Use the function modifier 'inline' unconditionally. > > Or not bother. The compiler tends to have its own ideas, especially > when link-time-optimization is enabled. There is one case you need to bother: inline functions in a header file. Compilers decide if they want to inline them or compile them as weak symbols, but they never generate strong ones.