Prev: std::set and std::multiset element mutability
Next: IEnumerator Question
From: Tim Roberts on 29 Dec 2009 00:29
"Bo Persson" <bop(a)gmb.dk> wrote:
>
>Tim Roberts wrote:
>
>> ...with the one major caveat that the "C compiler" is compliant
>> with the 1989 C standard, not the 1999 C standard. In my mind,
>> that is growing into an embarrassment for Microsoft. Would the
>> world have taken Microsoft seriously if it had ignored the 1989
>> standard well into the 20th Century?
>
>It seems like C99 support is seriously ignored in most places.
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html

I'm not clear on why you think this supports your statement. Gcc has had
C99 support for almost a decade, as this chart attests. Not 100% support,
but it's hardly what I would call "seriously ignored".
--
Tim Roberts, timr(a)probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
From: Bo Persson on 29 Dec 2009 13:43
Tim Roberts wrote:
> "Bo Persson" <bop(a)gmb.dk> wrote:
>>
>> Tim Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> ...with the one major caveat that the "C compiler" is compliant
>>> with the 1989 C standard, not the 1999 C standard. In my mind,
>>> that is growing into an embarrassment for Microsoft. Would the
>>> world have taken Microsoft seriously if it had ignored the 1989
>>> standard well into the 20th Century?
>>
>> It seems like C99 support is seriously ignored in most places.
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
>
> I'm not clear on why you think this supports your statement. Gcc
> has had C99 support for almost a decade, as this chart attests.
> Not 100% support, but it's hardly what I would call "seriously
> ignored".

The list shows another compiler that has 10+ features missing or
broken 10 years after the C99 standard.

On the other hand, both gcc 4.4/4.5 and VC10 implement a lot of
features of C++0x even BEFORE that standard comes out.

To me that shows that there just isn't a great interest in C99.


Bo Persson


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: std::set and std::multiset element mutability
Next: IEnumerator Question