On Sun, 6 Aug 2017, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2017-08-06 14:39, Jeremy Harris wrote:
>> I'd like to start using designated-initialisers, which is a C99
>> feature. We've avoided such things up until now, to keep backward
>> compatability. Does anyone want to take a stance, pro or con?
Hmm. I'd not come across designated-initialisers before.
I see that they are not available in C++ before C++14 and not the same
way even then (I see something about strict rules on order in C++).
Also gcc allows a non-standard extension to initialising array *ranges*.
Designated-initialisers might be a difficulty for the occasional
exim developer.
----
More generally:
on SL6, "man gcc" says:
-std=
... ...
c99
c9x
iso9899:1999
iso9899:199x
ISO C99. Note that this standard is not yet fully
supported; see <http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.4/c99status.html>
for more information. The names c9x and iso9899:199x are
deprecated.
RHEL6/CentOS6/SL6 do have newer versions of GNU C, at least up to 5.3.1
which has "substantially completely support" for C99 and C11, so C99
would not be a complete disaster for these old but still supported OSes.
--
Andrew C Aitchison
