Which Visual C++?

[Randy Howard]

So, what is Apple shipping _other_ than GCC? Unless validation means
something other than "meets all the requirements for a hosted or
freestanding implementation".

The "c99" command on MacOS 10.5 (the one that's claimed to conform to
UNIX 03) is documented to be just a wrapper around GCC. I don't have
access to a system I can actually play around with[1], so I can't
confirm it, but it seems to me more likely that they gave it a generous
C99 conformance test than that they fixed the compiler and missed
updating the documentation.

If Apple thought it was important to people, I would expect them to
provide a compiler that at least tried to fully conform to C99, but I
somehow doubt that they think it's worth the effort.

c99 invokes gcc 4.0.1, which is not a full C99 compiler. This is on
Leopard with the latest patches and updates applied, not that it
matters.

 

[Randy Howard]

I have no idea which C compiler Apple is shipping with their OS X 10.5,
according to Karen Crippes, it has nevertheless been validated with Plum
Hall CVS 2006a:

http://www.opengroup.org/csq/view.mhtml?norationale=1&noreferences=1&RID
=apple
%2FLM1%2F3

Given that Gnu openly admits the C99 conformance is incomplete, and in
some cases "broken", that implies that the test you are putting faith
in above is broken. Badly.

 

[Tor Rustad]

Given that Gnu openly admits the C99 conformance is incomplete, and in
some cases "broken", that implies that the test you are putting faith
in above is broken. Badly.

Well, it doesn't follow that Plum Hall CVS 2006a is broken.


Yesterday, I discovered that my employer is listed with 5 security
certificates in the public VISA records, while the fact of the matter,
is that we only have taken a single certificate of this kind.

To me, there are a number possibilities, including:

1. The content on the web page was wrong.
2. The VISA records are wrong.
3. The review report received by VISA was wrong
4. I'm missing something

 

[Randy Howard]

Well, it doesn't follow that Plum Hall CVS 2006a is broken.

If this test claims to verify C99 conformance, which I felt you were
implying previously, then it certainly is broken.