gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?

Roman Divacky rdivacky at freebsd.org
Fri Jan 9 09:28:15 PST 2009

> >my point is that in C89 mode *restrict* (in whatever spelling) got expanded
> >to nothing. we had a bug (typo in fact) related to *restrict* and we didnt
> >catch it because of C89 compilation mode...
> Ah, you mean a simple syntax error like char __restrict* a instead of 
> char* __restrict a. I thought you meant something serious like different 
> behaviour between the standards. Why somebody would #define away 
> __restrict (or #define away any other extension, which GCC accepts 
> anyway) is beyond me. If the source code already contains distinctions 
> between C89 and C99 then, imo, somebody did something wrong.
my point was general - people expect C99 features and use them (it's 10 years
old) but we dont compile in that mode - this mismatch may yield weird bugs

> >my point is that we might have bugs in the C99 code that other (non-gcc) 
> >compilers
> >expose and it's a good thing to unite on one standard. ie. C99 :)
> In general I agree: C99 should be used as language standard for 
> compilation. style(9) needs some updates for this, too.

I hope we'll have C99 on default soon :)

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list