C99 conforming compilers

[Scorpio]

Hi,
I have made a list of C99 conforming compilers at
http://geocities.com/avsharath/c99compilers.htm
I've created this list by searching the web thoroughly.
Please let me know if you are aware of any other
C99 conforming compilers.

Sharath A.V

 

[Michael Mair]

Hi,
I have made a list of C99 conforming compilers at
http://geocities.com/avsharath/c99compilers.htm
I've created this list by searching the web thoroughly.
Please let me know if you are aware of any other
C99 conforming compilers.

You may want to consider
http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.c/msg/12ab9f767256334b


Cheers
Michael

 

[Michael Rasmussen]

You may want to consider
http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.c/msg/12ab9f767256334b

It is not correct: AFAIK gcc 4.x is C99 conforming.

 

[Jordan Abel]

It is not correct: AFAIK gcc 4.x is C99 conforming.

For x <= 1:

variable-length arrays Broken
complex (and imaginary) support in <complex.h> Broken
extended identifiers Missing
library functions in <inttypes.h> Library Issue
extended integer types in <stdint.h> Missing
additional math library functions in <math.h> Library Issue Missing
floating-point environment access in <fenv.h> Library Issue
IEC 60559 (also known as IEC 559 or IEEE arithmetic) support Broken
inline functions Broken
additional predefined macro names Missing
standard pragmas Missing
deprecate ungetc at the beginning of a binary file Library Issue

The list looks pretty much the same on the "mainline CVS" page here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html [4.1 page is linked from there]

 

[Michael Mair]

It is not correct: AFAIK gcc 4.x is C99 conforming.

For one thing: The list does have a certain age (as the
message states itself), so I wrote "consider".
For another: gcc is not C99 conforming; the gcc people
even silently dropped at least one issue (structure size
of structures with flexible array member) silently from
their gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html page without claiming
to have it fixed.

Cheers
Michael

 

[Randy Howard]

Michael Rasmussen wrote

It is not correct: AFAIK gcc 4.x is C99 conforming.

Close, but no cigar.