Hi Christoph On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 2:19 PM Christoph M. Becker <cmbecke...@gmx.de> 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. > And if we're going with C11, figuring out the details (which > configuration check to use, or only documenting the requirement) can > still be decided somehwat later, in my opinion. The consensus seems to be that bumping to C11 is ok. While keeping C99 compatibility wouldn't be a big hassle, it doesn't seem necessary anymore. I would agree with Christoph that documentation is enough for now. If your compiler happens to support all the C11 features we require, without full C11 compliance, then that's ok. If we want to reduce bug reports, a configure check for typedef redeclarations, nudging people in the right direction with an appropriate message might help. Verifying C11 support might be tricky, given that the compiler flags are not standardized. But I'm not a build system expert, there might be an approach I'm not aware of. Ilija
