c89 broken on head?

[Tijl Coosemans]

On 2013-03-07 22:36, Warner Losh wrote:
> 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.

My argument was to be practical, i.e. don't change what doesn't have to
change.

> -std=c11 is defintely too new, but maybe c89 is too old.
> 
> I thought the c89 program actually was mandated by POSIX, no?

Both were part of POSIX. c89 was a strict ISO c89 compiler, while cc was
c89, but could additionally accept "an unspecified dialect of the C
language". http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/cc.html

So, if practicality isn't a good enough argument, maybe POSIX compliance
is?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-toolchain/attachments/20130308/871bb541/attachment.sig>