C99 conforming compilers

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Scorpio, Jan 31, 2006.

  1. Scorpio

    Scorpio Guest

    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
    Scorpio, Jan 31, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Scorpio

    Michael Mair Guest

    Michael Mair, Jan 31, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Michael Rasmussen, Jan 31, 2006
    #3
  4. Scorpio

    Jordan Abel Guest

    On 2006-01-31, Michael Rasmussen <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:02:21 +0100, Michael Mair wrote:
    >
    >> 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.


    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]
    Jordan Abel, Feb 1, 2006
    #4
  5. Scorpio

    Michael Mair Guest

    Michael Rasmussen wrote:
    > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:02:21 +0100, Michael Mair wrote:
    >
    >>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.


    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
    --
    E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.
    Michael Mair, Feb 1, 2006
    #5
  6. Scorpio

    Randy Howard Guest

    Michael Rasmussen wrote
    (in article <>):

    > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:02:21 +0100, Michael Mair wrote:
    >
    >> 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.


    Close, but no cigar.


    --
    Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
    "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
    who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
    Randy Howard, Feb 1, 2006
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. bq
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    825
  2. Ben Hinkle

    support of C99 VLA in compilers

    Ben Hinkle, Dec 13, 2005, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    704
    Jordan Abel
    Dec 15, 2005
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,648
    Chris Torek
    Feb 20, 2006
  4. geletine

    commercial c compilers vs free c compilers

    geletine, Jul 2, 2006, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,296
  5. Replies:
    30
    Views:
    828
    Richard Heathfield
    Apr 7, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page