Re: Ping Tom Gardner et. al.

The real nasty is that frequently C/C++ compilers

> implement /a/ subset of a standard, where the subset > depends on what is convenient and what the compiler > writers understand. > > ISTR a triumphant announcement that the first complete > C++ compiler was available, 4/5/6 years after the > standard was published.

Around 2007 I was discovering that while GCC was a good win32 C99 compiler, there was no C99 support in MSVCRT.DLL, so C99 language features worked, but C99 library features did not.

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
Reply to
Jasen Betts
Loading thread data ...

MSVC has famously had terrible C99 support. It has supported some C99 language features - primarily those that overlap with new features in C++. But MSVC developers have always regarded C as a dead language supported "as is" for old code, rather than with new features for new code. And thus the standard C runtime library from MSVC has had no C99 support other than as needed for C++.

I believe that current versions of MSVC are better, with more support in the libraries and with a move to clang for the C front end (clang has full C99 and C11 support). But I am not an MSVC user, so I don't have details.

When using gcc on Windows, you can use libraries other than MSVC's dll. Not only will you get better C99 support, you will get significantly faster code - using a DLL for basic library support (rather than a statically linked library, or at least a decent linking system like on

*nix systems) is going to give you massive overheads.
Reply to
David Brown

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.