On Sunday, 11 August 2024 at 17:27, Giovanni Giacobbi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 at 16:12, Ilija Tovilo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Christoph
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 2:19 PM Christoph M. Becker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01.08.2024 at 23:57, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
>>>
>>> So skimming the whole discussion[1] it seems that most are generally
>>> fine with bumping the requirements to C11, except for Giovanni Giacobbi
>>> (whose draft PR[2] had no further discussion so far), and maybe for some
>>> uncertainties regarding some less used compilers.
>>
>> Giovanni's remark that this would impact many people was challenged by
>> Jakub [1] which didn't get a response. I believe it's safe to assume
>> that this isn't the case.
>
> I'd like to remark that this is not a decision about renouncing some valuable feature in
> order to support older compilers, but rather about applying a patch shy of ~100 lines where half of
> the changes should be considered bugfixes.
>
> If you think it would be acceptable to have an additional header file pre-declaring the
> typedefs, it would solve the only standing issue that prevents the entire codebase to be C99
> compliant. Isn't it worth it? The more systems that can bild PHP, the better :-)
>
> Also this is not a binding decision: If in the future there is a real need to increase the
> requirement to C11, you can always do that.
Even with this change we would not be fully C99 compliant, as we do rely on GCC extensions AFAIK.
Moreover, a bunch of us *want* to move to C11/C17.
C11 is a standard that is 13 years old, and C99 is 25 years old, I think it is totally reasonable
for us to bump the language spec we rely on.
Finally, I would like to, once again, see a system where moving to C11 is an actual problem.
Best regards,
Gina P. Banyard