>> I was not sure what Daniel is aiming for - c89 or c99.
>
> I always aimed for c89 to remain functional even for the most stubborn legacy compilers, as that's where we draw the
> line for curl and I've always wanted c-ares to be a viable option for curl builds on all platforms curl can build on.
>
> Also, because I've never seen or felt any strong benefits in switching over to C99.
>
> But as I've been reducing my presense and maintainer activities in c-ares, I don't want to suggest or impose that my
> opinion is much stronger than anyone elses'. It's a discussion that could be worth having if someone thinks we should
> go there.
>
Yes, c89 is still the goal. It appears this was missed in a PR pull review at some point. This code has been around a
long time for iOS, but it was just recently allowed to be used on MacOS too.
-Brad
Received on 2020-07-18