From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: xenodasein--- via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Development Speed Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 14:36:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <83r1a4yfpt.fsf@gnu.org> <8335mky4rl.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: xenodasein@tutanota.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3262"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: eliz@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 23 14:40:32 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n0OKe-0000cx-Ne for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 14:40:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53476 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n0OKd-0004WB-BC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 08:40:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36884) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n0OGl-0007N0-DX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 08:36:31 -0500 Original-Received: from w4.tutanota.de ([81.3.6.165]:44604) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n0OGj-0003KI-Mp; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 08:36:31 -0500 Original-Received: from w3.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.164]) by w4.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37BB410601E7; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 13:36:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1640266581; s=s1; d=tutanota.de; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:References:Sender; bh=tkEXU4+85+UAHI3Ao0aAtdnCCfEBRLftoqQUW+U8MOE=; b=eyb3gw+tQCk4UesquL5tfm8nSpoqx/MDacDHn74jgZqq/H9M45NLmAByp98hHCgK 523+G7vH7BzPoEJ6qdcsmj9KlIActJ8rfAOX2oXUY37vK2pvz5UGvCwdZERvt821a6E rX4CWsbNDd59o4FR+HoHycwt8LU6ObMg6KLTMFQY8CGRuiOyVdrvI1LivcQUDuV63oT x+7lW/hXjUh5JjDyJNw3jy7Lj/NyaXOaVg6BKF94bXLUdOZyRUSdWYOZOSIkJ2u/doP V4rGU0J2SidTDSgw8xddI9+DZACmI/2VO6jrVyfU8qq9Jln8Btnq2hFMOu1aSIrPgf1 6XLM8WSwRw== In-Reply-To: <8335mky4rl.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=81.3.6.165; envelope-from=xenodasein@tutanota.de; helo=w4.tutanota.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:282952 Archived-At: Quoting: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-12/msg02200.ht= ml From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Development Speed Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 18:37:50 +0200 > I don't think I understand what you are getting at.=C2=A0 The issue you > raised was why we don't use C11, so my question to you is what is it > in C11 that is not in C99 that you would miss in a program like Emacs? C99 of course cause much less stress than ANSI. (Unless one knows the difference of pitfalls between C99 and C11 standards then it is smooth sailing.) Isn't a new compiler compiling old standard more likely to cause non-compliant behavior, than the one it is developed for? (Assuming implementation has achieved maturity.) Then there is VLAs, won't using C99 result in the worse optimization? We would need to know how many UB related bugs are hiding in entirety of Emacs for me to make any real case anyway. Maybe the historical and current reasoning regarding to the choice of "-std=3D" with their pro/contra exist in a series of comments, or somewhere else, then I (or any other n00b) can refer that instead of bothering you with these.=C2=A0 Thanks for indulging my curiosity so far.