Re: Proposal: change requirement for tools from C89 to C99

On 2/2/22 8:57 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> Am Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 10:28:43AM +0900 schrieb PHO:
>> 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.
> 
> Are you talking about C or C++ here? Because C inline should not result
> in a weak definition at all.

Ah... you're right. I forgot that C and C++ treated inline functions 
differently.