Re: Proposal: change requirement for tools from C89 to C99

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>]

Am Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 10:28:43AM +0900 schrieb PHO:
> I'm all for switching to C99! "int i; for (i = 0; ..." have always made me
> anxious!
> 
> 
> On 2/2/22 6:36 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 14:53, Roland Illig <roland.illig%gmx.de@localhost> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Am 31.01.2022 um 11:14 schrieb Robert Elz:
> > > > I don't follow C standards.   What are the c99 features we'd
> > > > want to use in tools that don't work in c89?
> [snip]
> > > 
> > > * Use the function modifier 'inline' unconditionally.
> > 
> > Or not bother.  The compiler tends to have its own ideas, especially
> > when link-time-optimization is enabled.
> 
> There is one case you need to bother: inline functions in a header file.
> Compilers decide if they want to inline them or compile them as weak
> symbols, but they never generate strong ones.

Are you talking about C or C++ here? Because C inline should not result
in a weak definition at all.

Joerg