Hi
[2018-12-27 17:27] Martin Tournoij <martin_AT_arp242.net>
>
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018, at 08:46, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> > // is not ANSI.
>
> Is there a good reason for sticking with ANSI C? It's my understanding
> that even most small/minimal compilers support C99 (or most of it)?
>
> The coding style document even endorses it: "Use C99 without extensions
> (ISO/IEC 9899:1999)"
>
> (Again, just curious, don't want to argue anything one way or the other.
> It's just something I've wondered for a while).
The strict aliasing rule enforcement[0] could be a reason? This rule
was only enforced in C99.
Not sure that makes it worth it to stick to C89, especially because
there are ways around this rule.
Cheers,
Silvan
[0]
https://cellperformance.beyond3d.com/articles/2006/06/understanding-strict-aliasing.html
Received on Thu Dec 27 2018 - 11:20:51 CET