Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> writes: > And I would not want to see that happen either, nor do I think Florian > would, or many of the other participants in this thread. > > Indeed, for some projects, where it's hopeless^Wlots of work, > we're using -std=c89 or -std=gnu89 as appropriate - as already stated. > > But most things are easy to fix. > > Our interest is purely in making the default stricter for better UX, > reducing the net amount of these bugs in the wild, and avoiding > regressions when we fix these problems. Trying to remove C89 entirely > would, if nothing else, be needlessly antagonistic, but some of the > replies seem to act as if we have.
But programs are not using c89 or gnu89, right? They are using gnu99 and gnu11.
