Hi [2018-12-27 17:27] Martin Tournoij <mar...@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
