Hi Levi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 5:56 PM Levi Morrison
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Given the timetable, I wouldn't change the C std requirements for 8.4.
Just to state it officially: You object to switching to C11 in 8.4? In
that case, we'll have to postpone.
> I would stop relying on the typedef and forward declare only the
> struct, and that. Note that although Windows supports C11, it does not
> support all features including atomics. Someone chimed in to say that
> they are available, but this doesn't match the information I got from
> a coworker who did a similar test. Given conflicting information and
> the short timetable, I think we should lean towards being cautious. I
> hope for 8.5/9.0 we can move to C11/C17 which can improve the typedef
> situation, simplify our atomics handling, and more.
I'm a bit confused about the relevance of C11 atomics. As I'm sure
you're aware, they remain optional in C17/C23. So, we'll need to
support a fallback, my suggestion was not to remove the fallback.
Essentially, code-wise, nothing would change if we adopt C11, except
being allowed to redeclare typedefs. Apart from that, only the
documentation would change.
Ilija