K
Kenny McCormack
[QUOTE="jacob navia said:It could be something as simple as "thank you for making
use of this wonderful extension"; the standard says nothing about the
contents of the diagnostic message; but a message of some kind is required.
Well, no message. And to tell you the truth, I think nobody cares,
excepting language lawyers.[/QUOTE]
It *does* emit a diagnostic. The diagnostic is a string of zero length.
According carping kuyper, this is OK.
I have worked for years in this project, and C99 is supported with all
important features there. There may be a few things not done yet, but
they are relatively obscure. The only significant feature missing is
variable arguments in the preprocessor.
You could probably get everybody here to shut up if you just said "It
supports most of C99". You could probably also get them STFU
permanently it you said something to the effect of "I don't really care
about conformance - not in the dogmatically religious fundamentalist
Christian way that the regs of CLC do. I care about performance and
usability. I honestly believe that usability is more important than
religious 'conformance'. And I thank God that I don't live in the 14th
Century!"
The problem is that every time this comes up, the scenario goes like this:
newbie: I'm looking for a C compiler for Windows. What do you suggest?
Jacob: You should try my lcc-win32 product. <various bits of
text about how good it is, including some kind of statement,
often in somewhat broken English, to the effect that it
supports C99 features>.
Now, at this point, Heathfield (or one of his minions) will figure out a
way to misinterpret what Jacob has posted (Note that as a non-native
speaker of English, Jacob's English isn't perfect and there's always a
way to construe it badly) and to hijack the thread into the BS that we
always see.
And thus we get to where we are.