On 2021-04-12 at 12:41:35, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 12 2021, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> 
> > On 12/04/21 18.02, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >> But I'm submitting this because of brian m. carlson's note[3] about
> >> wanting to submit more general patches for declaring a hard dependency
> >> on all of C99.
> >
> > I think we should bump standard requirement to C99, right?
> 
> I think that's worth discussing, but isn't the topic of this more narrow
> change.

I'm in favor of this more narrow change as well.

Junio's statement that packages may not have had time to update is true,
but I also just looked at a variety of packages that run on Linux,
FreeBSD, and NetBSD (and, since it's pkgsrc, Solaris), and they're all
updated.  Usually most open source OS vendors are reasonably prompt
about updating their Git versions, at least in the bleeding edge
repositories.

If this works on Windows, it will also work on Unix, because POSIX has
required C99 support since the 2001 revision, and __VA_ARGS__ is C99.
Unix systems are not the thing preventing us from enabling C99 support
(or any subset of it) in any meaningful sense.

> As noted in
> http://lore.kernel.org/git/87wnt8eai1.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com if we
> simply do that some of our MSVC CI will start failing.
> 
> I don't know what other compilers we need to support that may support
> our current subset of C99 features, but not the full set, or if e.g. the
> CI can simply have its MSVC compiler version bumped.

I'm looking at fixing our CI before I send in my series.  My series,
when it comes in, will have a green CI status because I do want to be
sure that we're providing a supported environment for MSVC wherever
that's possible.
-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Houston, Texas, US