Dear all, I've got a question - does anyone really depend on a non-C99 compliant compiler? MSVC supports C99 from 2013 [1], GCC has complete support from 4.5 [2] (with various bits earlier), TCC also has everything except complex numbers [3] (what is on their TODO) and Clang has complete support [4]. I'm asking this question because we're considering making C99-supporting compiler as a dependency for ECL C backend. This will relieve us from writing backward-compatible workarounds for the older standard and will simplify the code. That also means, that various improvements will be possible and code will be easier to maintain. Best regards, Daniel [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2013/07/19/c99-library-support-in-vis... [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html [3] http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/blob/HEAD:/TODO [4] http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#id43 -- Daniel Kochmański | Poznań, Poland ;; aka jackdaniel "Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
Daniel Kochmański <daniel@turtleware.eu> writes:
I've got a question - does anyone really depend on a non-C99 compliant compiler?
C99 is 16 years old. I would feel it's rather safe to rely on it. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ “The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.” -- Carl Bass CEO Autodesk
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Daniel Kochmański <daniel@turtleware.eu> wrote:
I'm asking this question because we're considering making C99-supporting compiler as a dependency for ECL C backend.
This will relieve us from writing backward-compatible workarounds for the older standard and will simplify the code. That also means, that various improvements will be possible and code will be easier to maintain.
+1. This would be a welcome improvement. -- Arto Bendiken | @bendiken | http://ar.to
participants (3)
-
Arto Bendiken -
Daniel Kochmański -
Pascal J. Bourguignon