RE: C99? No, portability.

[John Kearney <jokearney@qnx.com>]

Well c99 may be 14 years old but it still isn't fully supported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99 



-----Original Message-----
From: gdb-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Doug Evans
Sent: Donnerstag, 18. Juli 2013 00:38
To: John Gilmore
Cc: Mark Kettenis; Tom Tromey; gdb
Subject: Re: C99? No, portability.

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:11 AM, John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> wrote:
>> > So, I'd like to propose we allow the use of C99 in gdb.  In 
>> > particular I think we ought to require a C99 preprocessor -- 
>> > enabling this particular patch to go in and also allowing the use of "//" comments.
>>
>> Perhaps it is time to move on and start requiring a C99 compiler for GDB.
>
> Mark said it correctly.  This change would "require" a C99 compiler.
> Not just "allow the use of C99 in GDB".
>
> I recommend that you NOT break compatability with older compilers for 
> gratuitous reasons.  For example, I still run systems based on Red Hat 
> 7.3, which use gcc-2.96.  I can still compile modern GDB's on that 
> system.  (With the few portability patches below :-).)

gdb successfully moved from K&R to C89, so it's not like we haven't been through this before.

C99 is 14 years old.  How many people still require C89 vs how many have long since moved on?