On 11/11/2012 04:47 AM, NightStrike wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 11/10/2012 04:45 AM, NightStrike wrote: >>> Making c99 the default for gcc would be a great candidate for this. >>> IIUC, gcc without -std=c99 will compile for c89. And if I read the >>> manual correctly, it's because c99 isn't finished yet. gcc 5.0 should >>> have a complete c99. >> >> "Should" in what sense? The missing features are either library issues that >> we can't do anything about or things that no-one cares about enough to >> fix. GCC is, to all intents and purposes, C99 compatible. >> >> See http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html > > The manual doesn't imply that: > > "-std=gnu99 GNU dialect of ISO C99. When ISO C99 is fully implemented > in GCC, this will become the default." > > So from the perspective of the user reading the manual entry for the > gnu99 option, the only feedback is 1) c99 isn't done, and 2) there's > some plan to finish it and then make it the default. > > You seem to imply that it's as done as it'll ever realistically be.
I can't possibly know that: someone might decide to do the last bit of work to be able to claim full compatibility. Nonetheless, I agree with Joseph's opinion that it would be reasonable to make gnu99 the default. > Sounds kind of conflicting. I think the statement in the manual is a bit idealistic. Andrew.