On Aug 2, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Warren Young <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Ron W <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This makes me wonder what the benefit of staying with the C89 specification >> instead of the C99 specification. Are there really still compilers in use >> that don't implement C99? > > Visual C++ didn’t get full C99 support until 2013.
To clarify, by “full” I’m saying that with the release of VC++2013, the portability workarounds became no worse than for the wide deployed range of C compilers on POSIX systems. For example, VC++2013 lacked snprintf(), but VC++ has had _snprintf() since at least 2003. Much harder to work around are missing format specifiers, which were much improved by VC++2013 relative to prior versions. But, if you want to hold a hard line, that only goes to support my original point: Microsoft didn’t have ISO-compliant C99 support until VC++2015: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh409293(v=vs.140).aspx#BK_CRT _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
