Le 03/04/2026 à 23:51, Andrew Bower a écrit :
> Hi Rainer,
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 11:17:48AM +0100, Rainer Weikusat via Dng wrote:
>> The advantage of omitting the name when the parameter isn't meant to be
>> used is that it avoids a warning about an unused parameter. But I think
>> this should support C99 and hence, will change it accordingly.
> Why not stick with the new C standard as the baseline for a new project?
> It's rare enough one gets a chance to do this and C23 has some solid
> improvements!
>
> gcc-14/13 in Excalibur support most of C23 and gcc-12/11 in Daedalus
> support a subset including N2480 "unnamed parameters in function
> definitions".

    The problem with latest improvements of the language is that the
proper compilers aren't widespread enough.

    Eg: C23 allows to mark a function which never returns as
[[noreturn]], but this attribute is not known of version 12 of gcc, as
in Daedalus, for example. Instead, this not so old version of gcc has
its own non-standard attribute for the same meaning, which is _Noreturn.

    Just to give an example with an application I'm working on.

--     Didier