![]() Mandates diagnostics for // comments? That was an issue only for C90Ĭonformance, and you do not claim C90 conformance (or so I thought?). We're talking about C99 conformance here - what part of the C99 standard > No, for instance it will accept // comments as you and your stupid > of any extensions for which C99 requires a diagnostic? > So it now has a fully conforming mode in which it diagnosis all uses > when it doesn't contradict with the newer standards. > And lcc-win conforms to C99, and will accept most syntax of C90 Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister" (I didįind a case where the compiler chokes on a moderately complicated If so, this is great news, and congratulations are in order. (apart from bugs, which are inevitable in any large software project). That were missing at the time, so perhaps lcc-win does conform to C99 A quick test indicates that it does now support these features I've just downloaded and installed the latest version (3.8, Feb 22Ģ009). | Besides the preprocessor is still missing the variable | Designated initializers and structure initializers with the Here's a brief discussion of lcc-win32's C99 status on Implying that lcc-win32 is a conforming C99 compiler. Unimportant were not yet implemented did not stop him from saying or Than 100% conformance the fact that a few features that he considered "C99 conformance", or something similar, to refer to something less ![]() As I recall, he has at times used the phrase In addition to this, at times in the past, he has claimed C99Ĭonformance while his compiler has had known and acknowledgedĬonformance failures. > conformance, and in another place (Usenet) he's claiming > It's simple enough - in one place (his Web site) he's claiming > You read on his website what he's claiming, so I don't see your > proving him wrong, it would be nice to know what he is actually ![]() > Before I think about whether I'd be prepared to spend the time Nothing wrong with selling it, but *you* are lying when you claim that Oh, and it is not free for commercial use, so you are selling it. Your recommendations are not independent. Nothing wrong with you being in favour of your work, but it does mean You have spent a lot of time andĮffort working on it so you are naturally biased in its favour. > This is a lie since I am not selling anything > heavily on what you mean by "C compiler". > any known C Standard, so whether it counts as a C compiler depends > Note, however, that Jacob Navia is the vendor, so this is not an > The lcc-win compiler comes with compiler + IDE and windowed > I would like to know the best Free C Compiler ![]() I find many compilers available in internet. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2022
Categories |