<html><head></head><body>Point being, it's a compiler bug, which is already fixed. Don't use old buggy EOL compilers. This patch is wrong.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Le 27 février 2020 16:36:19 GMT+02:00, Alexandre Janniaux <ajanni@videolabs.io> a écrit :<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">Hi,<br><br>Yes, but according to the page ePirat linked, the DR 459 is<br>fixed in C17 which is ISO/IEC 9899:2018, and previous<br>revision was 9899:2012 if I'm not wrong.<br><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2244.htm">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2244.htm</a><br><a href="https://www.iso.org/standard/61717.html">https://www.iso.org/standard/61717.html</a><br><br>About Clang 6 or 7 failing with std=c17, I don't know and<br>might be the bug you mention (as it is fixed right after)<br>but it doesn't impact us as we're not using C17/18 afaik.<br><br>Regards,<br>--<br>Alexandre Janniaux<br>Videolabs<br><br>On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 03:59:41PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi,<br><br> C99 had 4 editions, the last one in 2007. C11 had at least 2 editions before 2017.<br><br> But even if you consider the 2017 edition a different version altogether, how do you explain that clang 6 and 7 fail to build with -std=c17 ?<br><br> Le 27 février 2020 14:50:49 GMT+02:00, Alexandre Janniaux <ajanni@videolabs.io> a écrit :<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi,<br><br>On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 01:14:52PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;">If you think we should go back to pre-2011, you need to make a patch<br></blockquote>to fiw the C code and configure script accordingly. And this (C/C++11)<br>*was* discussed and agreed upon here, by the way.<br><br>This «mistake» is part of the last draft on C11 and, like<br>ePirat mentionned it, the issue was raised on March 22 2014<br>so it seems to be part of C11 standard afaik.<br><br>Did something changed in the final private C11 norm with<br>regards to this prototype? It would seem weird that the<br>issue was raised three years later if it was already fixed.<br><br>Regards,<br>--<br>Alexandre Janniaux<br>Videolabs<hr>vlc-devel mailing list<br>To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options:<br><a href="https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel">https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel</a><br></blockquote>--<br>Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec Courriel K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.<br></blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"><hr>vlc-devel mailing list<br>To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options:<br><a href="https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel">https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel</a><br></blockquote><hr>vlc-devel mailing list<br>To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options:<br><a href="https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel">https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel</a></pre></blockquote></div><br>-- <br>Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec Courriel K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.</body></html>