c89 broken on head?

[Warner Losh]

On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:

> On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> ...
>> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly
>> be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can be
>> expected to add -std=c11.
> 
> I am not sure I buy that argument; if it were so, we should default to
> K&R C instead, since "old code" (for some arbitrary definition of "old")
> could never have been expected to know about gcc defaulting to gnu89.

-std=c11 is defintely too new, but maybe c89 is too old.

I thought the c89 program actually was mandated by POSIX, no?

Warner