c89 broken on head?

[Dimitry Andric]

On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
...
> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly
> be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can be
> expected to add -std=c11.

I am not sure I buy that argument; if it were so, we should default to
K&R C instead, since "old code" (for some arbitrary definition of "old")
could never have been expected to know about gcc defaulting to gnu89.