Re: [atlas-devel] anybody know of need for C89 compliance?

[J. R. J. <J.R...@ba...>]

This is fine for me.  You could make use of the feature test macros for C99 to
produce a helpful error if the support you need isn't there.

Jess

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, R. Clint Whaley wrote:

> Guys,
>
> In the developer release, I am considering relaxing ATLAS's present
> strict adherence to ANSI/ISO 9899-1990 standard, so that I can assume
> stuff from C99.  Frankly, the lack // is slowly killing me.
>
> Right now, any C99 features are enabled only by macros that can be shut
> off.
>
> There is little benefit aside from  aesthetics to this (though safe
> string ops would be *so* nice), so I don't want to do it if anybody
> reports using a compiler that doesn't support these features, but I'm
> thinking that while their might still be some compilers w/o full C99
> support, they'll all have the features I most want to add.
>
> Here's the list of things I'd definitely like to assume support for that
> I think all compilers support (even likely obscure ones on embedded
> systems):
>    // style comments
>    inline
>    restrict
>    long long int, %llu
>    Safe string operations, like snprintf (this lack is painful)
>
> In addition there are more advanced features that might be useful, but
> I'm not sure if I can count on them being universally available:
>    _Complex support
>    _Atomic
>    _Thread_local
>
> Does anyone have comments on this idea?
>
> Thanks,
> Clint
>
>