Re: Opinions about a book

In message <lnbq33fvtm.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Keith Thompson 
<kst-u@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>Chris H <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> In message <g0n1mp$1tc$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, santosh
>> <santosh.k83@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>[...]
>>>I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
>>>full C99 hosted implementation.
>>
>> However they were done AFAIK for political reasons
>
>Does the reason it was done affect the quality of the implementation?

No idea. It might do.

>Or anything else?

>>>Intel and gcc have implemented about
>>>90% of C99.
>>
>> Not so for Gcc apparently  I understand that it is no more C99 than
>> the majority of other compilers out there.
>
>gcc's C99 status is posted at <http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html>.
 I
>don't know about the majority of other compilers, but for example I
>understand that Microsoft has made very little effort to conform to
>C99 beyond "long long" and "//".

So what. As M$ will tell you no one they know gives a rats arse about 
C99 compatibility.  Come to that neither does the vast majority of the 
embedded world (which is arguably a much larger users of C than M$ users 
are. )

>I've already posted Intel's statement that their compiler conforms to
>C99.  I can't confirm it, but I have no particular reason to doubt it.

Me neither.  However I can supply about 50 compilers from half a dozen 
suppliers and none of them or their customers seem to have any great 
interest in C99

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/