Re: So what Standard are we working off?

Richard Heathfield wrote:
Mark F. Haigh said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

I think the part of the C community that cares about portability wants a
widely-implemented standard, which it already has. Until C99 becomes as
widespread as C90, why would anyone use it if they need portability?

Come on, quit being so negative. Having everybody agree on "restrict"
now, for example, is better than a bunch of subtly incompatible type
aliasing optimization extensions later.

Not if it stops my program from compiling.

It shouldn't if you define restrict as an empty macro in C90 mode, or
otherwise hide it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So what Standard are we working off?
    ... a widely-implemented standard, which it already has. ... as widespread as C90, why would anyone use it if they need ... Having everybody agree on "restrict" ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: So what Standard are we working off?
    ... widespread as C90, why would anyone use it if they need portability? ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: So what Standard are we working off?
    ... as widespread as C90, why would anyone use it if they need ... Having everybody agree on "restrict" ... meant a C99 program using "restrict" would not compile with a C90 ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Porting C software
    ... by all compilers? ... C90 is good, yes... ... C99 doesn't come anywhere near achieving that. ... have a much bigger portability problem... ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Sizes of Integer Types
    ... So one must exercise care even in C90 (or accept that one's code is not ... C99 has all of the C90 ... portability issues, and adds a whole bunch of new ones. ... All C99 does is provide a standardised set of names. ...
    (comp.lang.c)