On Nov 13, 2007 4:43 PM, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
Ken Pizzini <tz_@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
either. 


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@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 amused."