Programming @programming.dev Jure Repinc @lemmy.ml 1 mo. ago

GCC Preparing To Set C23 "GNU23" As Default C Language Version

www.phoronix.com GCC Preparing To Set C23 "GNU23" As Default C Language Version

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/21458338

The GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) support for the C23 programming language standard is now considered "essentially feature-complete" with GCC 15. As such they are preparing to enable the C23 language version (using the GNU23 dialect) by default for the C language version of GCC when not otherwise specified.

Preparations are now underway to set the default C language version of GCC to GNU23 as the GNU dialect of C23. Or in other words, implying -std=gnu23 when no other C standard is specified.

General Programming Discussion @lemmy.ml Jure Repinc @lemmy.ml 1 mo. ago

GCC Preparing To Set C23 "GNU23" As Default C Language Version

www.phoronix.com /news/GCC-Prepares-std-gnu23-Default

You're viewing a single thread.

5 comments

That's good and all, but we all explicitly pass -std=gnu99 (or -std=c99 if you don't care about MSYS2 compat) in our build scripts buddy 😉

Okay, maybe not all all. But you get the idea.

Are there any relevant projects who use the increasingly C++-infested newer versions of the language?
- I'm not a C programmer, but looking at the changes and improvements, there are lot of good advancements I would not want to miss out on: C11 (C17 just fixes a few little issues from C11) > C23
  
  Stuff like Multi-threading support, Improved Unicode support, Add memccpy() and whats so bad about Various syntax changes improve compatibility with C++? C doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you don't want learn the new changes or do not want rely on it because of compatibility reasons, I can understand. But why would you not use newer C versions, if there is no compatibility with older version "required"?
  
  Multi-threading support
  
  Who stopped using pthreads/windows threads for this?
  
  Unicode support
  
  Those who care use icu anyway.
  
  memccpy()
  
  First of all, 😄.
  Secondly, it's a library feature, not a language one.
  Thirdly, it existed forever in POSIX.
  And lastly, good bait 😄.
  
  whats so bad about Various syntax changes improve compatibility with C++
  
  It's bad because compiler implementations keep adding warnings and enabling them by default about completely valid usage that got "deprecated" or "removed" in "future versions of C" I will never use or give a fuck about. So my CI runs which all minimally have -Wall -Werror can fail with a compiler upgrade for absolutely irrelevant stuff to me. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't even know about these changes' existence, because I have zero interest in them.
  
  Those who like C++ should use C++ anyway. They can use the C+classes style if they like (spoiler alert: they already do).
  
  I can understand. But why would you not use newer C versions, if there is no compatibility with older version “required”?
  
  Because C doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and Rust exists. Other choices exist too for those who don't like Rust.
  
  My C projects are mature and have been in production for a long time. They are mostly maintenance only, with new minor features added not so often, and only after careful consideration.
  
  ^Still ^interested ⁱⁿ ^knowing ^what ^relevant ^projects ^will ^be ^using ^C23.
- Newer than C99? Both the Linux kernel and systemd build with gnu11. I'd call those pretty relevant.
  
  C23 is still far too new (still a draft) for any major projects that care about compiler compatibility.
  
  systemd
  
  Interesting. So they did it two years ago for the ~~lols~~.. i mean for the u8"😀"s*...which wasn't even really needed as one of the PR comments pointed out.
  
  * Yes, the mission creep is so bad the shit show that is systemd has emoticons.