On 2013-03-07 22:36, Warner Losh wrote: > On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >> ... >>> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly >>> be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can be >>> expected to add -std=c11. >> >> I am not sure I buy that argument; if it were so, we should default to >> K&R C instead, since "old code" (for some arbitrary definition of "old") >> could never have been expected to know about gcc defaulting to gnu89.
My argument was to be practical, i.e. don't change what doesn't have to change. > -std=c11 is defintely too new, but maybe c89 is too old. > > I thought the c89 program actually was mandated by POSIX, no? Both were part of POSIX. c89 was a strict ISO c89 compiler, while cc was c89, but could additionally accept "an unspecified dialect of the C language". http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/cc.html So, if practicality isn't a good enough argument, maybe POSIX compliance is?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
