Return to Answer

Commonmark migration

edited Jun 10, 2020 at 13:24

I think that static_assert((CHAR_BIT & (CHAR_BIT - 1)) == 0 can be pretty safely replaced by CHAR_BIT==8. There are various old DSP compilers that would fail the test, but they are indeed dinosaur systems.
stdint.h and constants like SIZE_MAX, PTRDIFF_MAX were added in C99. So by using such macros/constants, you'll essentially cause all C90 compilers to fail compilation.

Are C90 compilers dinosaurs per your definition? If not, then maybe do some checks if __STDC_VERSION__ is defined and if so what version. Because most of the exotic ones are likely to follow C90.

Are C90 compilers dinosaurs per your definition? If not, then maybe do some checks if __STDC_VERSION__ is defined and if so what version. Because most of the exotic ones are likely to follow C90.

I think that static_assert((CHAR_BIT & (CHAR_BIT - 1)) == 0 can be pretty safely replaced by CHAR_BIT==8. There are various old DSP compilers that would fail the test, but they are indeed dinosaur systems.
stdint.h and constants like SIZE_MAX, PTRDIFF_MAX were added in C99. So by using such macros/constants, you'll essentially cause all C90 compilers to fail compilation.

Are C90 compilers dinosaurs per your definition? If not, then maybe do some checks if __STDC_VERSION__ is defined and if so what version. Because most of the exotic ones are likely to follow C90.

I think that static_assert((CHAR_BIT & (CHAR_BIT - 1)) == 0 can be pretty safely replaced by CHAR_BIT==8. There are various old DSP compilers that would fail the test, but they are indeed dinosaur systems.
stdint.h and constants like SIZE_MAX, PTRDIFF_MAX were added in C99. So by using such macros/constants, you'll essentially cause all C90 compilers to fail compilation.

Are C90 compilers dinosaurs per your definition? If not, then maybe do some checks if __STDC_VERSION__ is defined and if so what version. Because most of the exotic ones are likely to follow C90.

Source Link

answered Mar 11, 2019 at 15:41

Lundin

answered Mar 11, 2019 at 15:41

Lundin

4.9k
16
29

I think that static_assert((CHAR_BIT & (CHAR_BIT - 1)) == 0 can be pretty safely replaced by CHAR_BIT==8. There are various old DSP compilers that would fail the test, but they are indeed dinosaur systems.
stdint.h and constants like SIZE_MAX, PTRDIFF_MAX were added in C99. So by using such macros/constants, you'll essentially cause all C90 compilers to fail compilation.

Are C90 compilers dinosaurs per your definition? If not, then maybe do some checks if __STDC_VERSION__ is defined and if so what version. Because most of the exotic ones are likely to follow C90.

lang-c