Milter-greylist

"manu@... [milter-greylist]" <milter-greylist@yahoogroups.com>
writes:

> 'Bruncsak, Attila' attila.bruncsak@... [milter-greylist]
> <milter-greylist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> After some debugging I figured out where was this coming from.
>> On the mean time I fixed the type of priv->priv_maxpeek,
>> which should be size_t and not int.
>
> The printf should use %zu now, but that is C99 syntax. How compatible is
> it with various systems that build milter-greylist?

Does anybody still use systems that don't have a reasonable way to use
C99?   I would be in favor of just declaring C99 a requirement.


As a data point, I worked on a project that was trying to be very
portable.  We picked C99 as the base standard.  It was pretty much ok,
with a minor exception of a compiler that objected to mixed
declarations/code (vs. the C89 requirement to have all decls first).
This compiler was from MS, and it was acknowledged to be old.

So, in the free software world, I don't see any reason to avoid assuming
C99.