From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ea3f3c185df1b1c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: Martin Krischik <martin@krischik.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Will the World ever see something beyond GNAT 3.15p?
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:23:04 +0100
Organization: None
Message-ID: <5477839.eS0ZGjAtkL@linux1.krischik.com>
References: <mailman.48.1105553479.527.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <Xns95DCE710F252FBerndSpechgmxcom@151.189.20.10>
 <41E5BEBD.A3C7BBD8@raytheon.com> <cs5jj0$mrp$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <Xns95DDD43B8B31ABerndSpechgmxcom@151.189.20.10>
 <4244894.mjszBdT2aV@linux1.krischik.com> <2qGdnRHihtRhI3rcRVn-uA@comcast.com>
 <1308622.IPB2vGgG6q@linux1.krischik.com> <lnvf9zd2td.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
 <1305947.louXmkqPvN@linux1.krischik.com>
 <41ea446b$0$22265$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>
Reply-To: martin@krischik.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1105878033 00 7297 SbprrLllhLn1h1Q 050116 12:20:33
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@t-online.de
X-ID: Tld+foZAZeLMP9OkspUNsFvWgl6SKO-lwk2aqDwFAkOZcVZ+y1+dQD
User-Agent: KNode/0.8.0
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7847
Date: 2005-01-16T12:23:04+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Adrien Plisson wrote:

> Martin Krischik wrote:
>> If only there was any C99 compiler. We have 2005 - name me one fully
>> compliant C99 compiler!
> 
> isn't digitalmars supposed to be C99 compliant ?

At least they have

static and type-qualifier-list now supported for array dimension per C99
6.7.5.2.

where gcc is still struggeling. I don't know where the problem is: Ada and
ISO-Pascal have got that feature for decades now.

> i know this compiler is way better standard compliant than many other
> commercial compilers, but i don't know how much of the standard it
> complies to.

They unimlemented feature lists are indeed very short:

C:

New struct member initializer syntax 
tgmath.h 
_Pragma

C++:

Distinction between dependent and non-dependent name lookup. 
Template template parameters. 
export keyword. 
Enums larger than an int.

But still they are not nil. Could it be that the former "slim" langugages C
and C++ have gone the way of PL/1: Become so complex that implemting the
*full* standart is impossible?

With Regards

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com