GCC 14 Now Honors The -std=c23 & -std=gnu23 Compiler Options For C23

[phoronix]

Phoronix: GCC 14 Now Honors The -std=c23 & -std=gnu23 Compiler Options For C23

While the next revision of the C standard won't see its formal publishing until the 2024 calendar year, the ISO C++ standards committee already decided on keeping "C23" as the informal name for this next major C update. As such, with today's GCC 14 Git the -std=c23 compiler option for targeting C23 is now honored along with -std=gnu23 for the GNU dialect of C23...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/GCC-14-std-c23-gnu23-23

[Setif]

Shouldn't be `the ISO C standards committee` in the first paragraph instead of `C++`

[Michael]

Shouldn't be `the ISO C standards committee` in the first paragraph instead of `C++`

Yep, thanks, just too used to typing C++

[DanglingPointer]

Michael When do we get the next huge gcc vs LLVM (vs MSVC as well if possible) ?
For Ryzen AND
With:

• O2
• O2 + march=native
• O2 + LTO
• O2 + LTO=thin (LLVM only)
• O2 + march=native + LTO
• O2 + march=native +LTO=thin (LLVM only)
• O3
• O3 + march=native
• O3 + LTO
• O3 + LTO=thin (LLVM only)
• O3 + march=native + LTO
• O3 + march=native + LTO=thin (LLVM only)
• Ofast
• Ofast + march=native
• Ofast + LTO
• Ofast + LTO=thin (LLVM only)
• Ofast + march=native + LTO
• Ofast + march=native + LTO=thin (LLVM only)

[Anux]

I would be much more interested to see how -Os and -Oz perform on an old Raspi or old (with small cache) CPU.

[plonoma]

Have the standards made the precedence, associativity, and semantics of all arithmetic operators that exist in C and C++ behave the same in both programming languages?
Have the standards explicitly specified saturation math as default when over- and underflowing for arithmetic?