R
Richard Heathfield
Rod Pemberton said:
Microsoft's conformance to C90 is actually very good. I have seen a couple
of tiny nits raised here on comp.lang.c, in such dark corners of the
language that I need never fear encountering them in real life.
Have you a more specific reference?
I have never claimed that gcc is C99-conforming. Indeed, I have claimed the
opposite many times. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
Show me.
Use a Microsoft compiler. They are notorious for non-conformance.
Microsoft's conformance to C90 is actually very good. I have seen a couple
of tiny nits raised here on comp.lang.c, in such dark corners of the
language that I need never fear encountering them in real life.
Just
read the comments by Michal Necasek (lead maintainer for OpenWatcom) on
openwatcom.contributors or openwatcom.users.c_cpp.
Have you a more specific reference?
Or, look at GCC C99 compliance page
I have never claimed that gcc is C99-conforming. Indeed, I have claimed the
opposite many times. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
or GCC extensions page. The point that you lack
confidence is rather meaningless when most of the strong competitors to
lcc-win32 fail on conformance...
Show me.