proposed changes to eliminate P macro
jonathan.leffler at gmail.com
Wed Nov 14 00:54:34 UTC 2007
On Nov 13, 2007 4:43 PM, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> Ken Pizzini <tz_ at explicate.org> writes:
> > I'd personally prefer to allow compilers that are C89 compliant
> > (provided that some sort of 64-bit integer is supported) to work
> > with this code, if possible, rather than requiring full C99 support.
> I'll second that. Very few full C99 environments actually exist yet.
> I just now ran into a bug with Sun's current compiler; it mishandles
> wider-than-32-bit integers in preprocessor expressions when it is
> running on 32-bit sparc, because the compiler doesn't support that
> part of C99 correctly yet. GCC doesn't claim full C99 support yet
If it's relevant, I'll third it. My notes on C99-like support being needed
were to justify the change from K&R to C89, not to request C99 support.
There are some nice features in C99 - the extra initializer options, for
example (though I wish they'd added a Fortran-like "repeat" option).
Jonathan Leffler <jonathan.leffler at gmail.com> #include <disclaimer.h>
Guardian of DBD::Informix - v2007.0914 - http://dbi.perl.org
"Blessed are we who can laugh at ourselves, for we shall never cease to be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tz