News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Checked C. Parent comment

Re:Checked C by ryao on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @04:52PM (#34086872)
> It's a shame this will never get through the insane bureaucracy that is the C standards committee. Had they listened to you all the way back in 2009, C11 might have been a game changer the same way C++11 was. Alas.

This comment did not age well:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34086304

A quick test with `clang -std=c89 -pedantic` says it was in C99. Amazingly, it seems that almost nobody knew about it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Checked C by sirwhinesalot on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @05:02PM (#34086964)
Not the same thing at all, that only works with compile-time known sizes.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Checked C by WalterBright on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @05:05PM (#34086996)
Pascal arrays were fixed at compile time, which I quickly discovered made Pascal rather useless without extensions.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Checked C by ryao on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @05:12PM (#34087072)
The example was for compile-time known sizes.
[ Parent | on HN ]