2 ms·
> I tend to stick to C99, > […] But we would need explicit atomics, explicit memory barriers, […] You should read a change summary before complaining about bi
by eqvinox 2y ago
> I tend to stick to C99,
> […] But we would need explicit atomics, explicit memory barriers, […]
You should read a change summary before complaining about bits missing from C99 that have in fact been added to C11.
> […] no toxic attribute like "packed structure" which makes us lose sight of data alignment […]
And you should also familiarize yourself with what's in actual ISO C vs. compiler extensions before complaining about bits that are in fact compiler extensions.
- sylware 2y agoI TEND to stick to C99 = usually C99 with very few bits of c11+ (usually the missing bits) and even some extensions (often related to ELF/object format). But I really try hard to minimize their usage. The pb is in ISO c11+ we got some of the missing stuff for modern hardware architecture, but also tons of tantrums (_generic, typeof, restrict....)