-
This was originally added as a ticket under POSIX, but `fscanf()` is not a POSIX function. It is from C89.
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/io/fscanf
The expectation from the POSIX API is that th…
ycsin updated
1 month ago
-
This was originally added as a ticket under POSIX, but `scanf()` is not a POSIX function. It is from C89.
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/io/scanf
The expectation from the POSIX API is that this…
ycsin updated
1 month ago
-
This was originally added as a ticket under POSIX, but `vscanf()` is not a POSIX function. It is from C89.
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/io/vfscanf
The expectation from the POSIX API is that t…
ycsin updated
1 month ago
-
The number of makefiles in this project is staggering, but in any case the issue I addressed in #525 for MSVC doesn't seem to be limited to MSVC. Seeing that there is a `tommath_c89.h` in the source t…
-
| | |
| --- | --- |
| Bugzilla Link | [11796](https://llvm.org/bz11796) |
| Version | unspecified |
| OS | All |
## Extended Description
Testcase (compile with clang -std=c89 -pedantic-erro…
-
I'm struggling to understand this sentence from the Readme: "c89 implies c99 and c11 c99 implies c11"
Shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, I'd expect that sentence to be written in this ot…
cesss updated
4 years ago
-
c99 is preferable because it includes a `bool` type and it allows variable declarations in for loops. Only reason I can think to stay with c89 is to support old or exotic compilers. If you are using…
-
With modern embedded compilers being able to translate C++ the rule saying `embedded -> use C89` is not as strict any more. Therefore it is time to rethink what usage scenarios we would like to suppo…
-
Is this C89, or C99? Or C89 with some extensions/C99 stuff (the int types), or something else?
(raised on IRC)
-
Hello,
my name is Michael and I initiated the following project some time ago:
https://ngagesdk.de
Basically this is a CMake integration for the Symbian S60v1.2 SDKs together with some library …