On Sunday, 11 August 2024 at 17:27, Giovanni Giacobbi <giova...@giacobbi.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 at 16:12, Ilija Tovilo <tovilo.il...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > I'd like to remark that this is not a decision about renouncing some valuable > feature in order to support older compilers, but rather about applying a > patch shy of ~100 lines where half of the changes should be considered > bugfixes. > > If you think it would be acceptable to have an additional header file > pre-declaring the typedefs, it would solve the only standing issue that > prevents the entire codebase to be C99 compliant. Isn't it worth it? The more > systems that can bild PHP, the better :-) > > Also this is not a binding decision: If in the future there is a real need to > increase the requirement to C11, you can always do that. Even with this change we would not be fully C99 compliant, as we do rely on GCC extensions AFAIK. Moreover, a bunch of us *want* to move to C11/C17. C11 is a standard that is 13 years old, and C99 is 25 years old, I think it is totally reasonable for us to bump the language spec we rely on. Finally, I would like to, once again, see a system where moving to C11 is an actual problem. Best regards, Gina P. Banyard
