[Info-vax] C99 stuff (Re: The Road to V9.0)

[John Reagan]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 10:26:42 AM UTC-4, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2019-06-06 23:44:44 +0000, Steven Schweda said:
> 
> >> 
> >> [...] I get tired of dragging around my own home-grown versions of stdint.h
> > 
> >    I know the feeling.  Is there any chance of a C macro in some place 
> > like <inttypes.h> or <[decc$]types.h> (or somewhere) which would reveal 
> > the existence of <stdint.h> at compile time?  Or will some __DECC_VER 
> > value be the clue?
> 
> I'd hope it'd be the expected __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L for this 
> check, but that ship may well have already sailed.
> 
> The compiler itself has been C99 since the ~millennium.
> 
> It's been the RTL and the headers that have lagged C99.
> 
> And as I've suggested before, I'd prefer to make the folks that don't 
> want to update their code have to take some minor steps—setting some 
> system parameter, tweaking a compiler CLD, defining some logical name 
> (gag), whatever other LTS-enable scheme—to re-establish the old 
> defaults for the old and unmodified compilations, and leave the 
> defaults to be the most current compiler support available.  Drag this 
> old mess forward best speed, and don't make those of us that are 
> maintaining and updating our code pay extra and forever, versus not 
> making the folks that aren't maintaining and updating pay even a little 
> bit just once.
> 
> 

This isn't just "define a few new symbols/macros" that can be guarded (at least without making the headers even uglier).  <inttypes.h> comes with C99 as does <stdint.h>.  Any inclusion of <inttypes.h> (at least to me) is the confirmation that you want the C99 names added to your namespace.  We just didn't do all of them in the past.  We do now.  Don't want C99 names?  Don't include C99 headers.  No different than any Linux box.  Putting "-ansi" on gcc doesn't keep you from shooting yourself in the foot with an include of <inttypes.h> or <stdint.h>.