Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Sean Farley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> C Bergström <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Sorry I can't help, but +1 troll on this... >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Jeff Hammond <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Serious question: >>>> >>>> What are your reasons for using a language that is 27 years old? Terrible >>>> compilers that have not been compliant with the current ISO C for 16 years? >>>> Because MPICH does it? >>>> >>> >>> Jeff - I work for a horrible, truly terrible compiler company >>> (sarcasm) and empathetically (sincerely) I don't think MSVC supports >>> C99. So just taking a random guess that it could be part of the >>> justification to maintain that level of compatibility. >> >> I believe MSVC compilers have supported C99 for a year or more now. > > If this is true could you point to a Microsoft document that states this? > My google searches came up with nothing. > > If this is true then we might be able to move up to C99 in about 5 years > when most people would have updated their Microsoft compilers to ones that > support C99.
It's been there since Visual Studio 2013 (I can confirm that 2013 supports C99 on my vm): https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2013/07/19/c99-library-support-in-visual-studio-2013/
