On 2021-04-11 at 22:12:38, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 11 2021, brian m. carlson wrote:
> 
> > On 2021-04-11 at 11:57:30, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >> 
> >> In this and some other patches we're continuing to add new fields to
> >> structs without using designated initializers.
> >> 
> >> Not a new problem at all, just a note that if you re-roll I for one
> >> would very much appreciate starting by migrating over to that. It makes
> >> for much easier reading in subsequent patches in this series, and in
> >> future ones.
> >
> > I'm happy to do that.  I thought we were not allowed to use C99 features
> > because only recent versions of MSVC support modern C.  I was previously
> > under the impression that MSVC didn't support anything but C89, but they
> > now support C11 and C17 in their latest release[0], much to my surprise.
> >
> > If we're willing to require C99 features, then I'm happy to add those.
> > I'll also send a follow-up series to require C99 support, which I think
> > is overdue considering the standard is 22 years old.
> >
> > [0] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/c11-and-c17-standard-support-arriving-in-msvc/
> 
> I don't think we can in general require C99, e.g. I found just the other
> day that our CI's MSVC will fail on %zu (to print size_t without %lu & a
> cast).

That's a shame.  I think I'd like to try, though, and ask people to
upgrade MSVC to a suitable version if we're going to continue to support
it.  It's not like there aren't alternatives.  So I'm going to send out
that series anyway, I think.  That's independent of this series, though,
so I'll add the designated initializers in v2.
-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Houston, Texas, US