• "Rajiv Bhagwat" <dataflow vsnl.com> Apr 07 2001
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Apr 07 2001
• "Rajiv Bhagwat" <dataflow vsnl.com> Apr 07 2001
• Arjan Knepper <arjan jak.nl> Apr 07 2001
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Apr 07 2001
• Damian Dixon <damian.dixon tenetdefence.com> Apr 09 2001
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Apr 09 2001

CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of various
compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there. Has there
been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the exercise
every year henceforth...)

DM 8 implements several of the new C99 features, like complex numbers.

Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amgv2$2o33$1 digitaldaemon.com>...
CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of various
compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there. Has


been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the


every year henceforth...)

The issue is more serious. Please read the journal. Its not that we care
about them reviewing or not, it is about inching closer to the set standard.
- Rajiv


Walter <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:9amogh$2u9g$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 DM 8 implements several of the new C99 features, like complex numbers.

 Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amgv2$2o33$1 digitaldaemon.com>...
CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of various
compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there. Has


been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the


every year henceforth...)

I have read the whole article online last week and did look into the test-result
zipfiles. IMHO it would be nice to see DMC there mentioned as well.

Rajiv Bhagwat wrote:

 The issue is more serious. Please read the journal. Its not that we care
 about them reviewing or not, it is about inching closer to the set standard.
 - Rajiv

 Walter <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:9amogh$2u9g$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 DM 8 implements several of the new C99 features, like complex numbers.

 Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amgv2$2o33$1 digitaldaemon.com>...
CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of various
compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there. Has


been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the


every year henceforth...)

I read the article - after we ship this version, we'll assess which
direction to take the compiler that is most promising. Regardless, though,
it will move towards the newer standards.

Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amsi3$30d1$1 digitaldaemon.com>...
The issue is more serious. Please read the journal. Its not that we care
about them reviewing or not, it is about inching closer to the set


- Rajiv


Walter <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:9amogh$2u9g$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 DM 8 implements several of the new C99 features, like complex numbers.

 Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amgv2$2o33$1 digitaldaemon.com>...
CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of various
compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there. Has


been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the


every year henceforth...)

My two penny's worth :>

I would love to see a move towards the ANSI C++ standard.

However I can see that it would be easier to move towards the C99
standard as this would require less work (templates being the
biggest problem).

- Damian

On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:58:06 -0700, "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote:
 I read the article - after we ship this version, we'll assess which
 direction to take the compiler that is most promising. Regardless, though,
 it will move towards the newer standards.
 
 Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amsi3$30d1$1 digitaldaemon.com>...
The issue is more serious. Please read the journal. Its not that we care
about them reviewing or not, it is about inching closer to the set


- Rajiv


Walter <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:9amogh$2u9g$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 DM 8 implements several of the new C99 features, like complex numbers.

 Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amgv2$2o33$1 digitaldaemon.com>...
CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of various
compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there. Has


been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the


every year henceforth...)






 

Both C99 and C++98 are important, since we ship both a C and a C++ compiler.
I happened to have an interest in numerical programming, however, so the
numerics features of C99 were a priority.

Damian Dixon wrote in message <1103_986806731 dilbert>...
My two penny's worth :>

I would love to see a move towards the ANSI C++ standard.

However I can see that it would be easier to move towards the C99
standard as this would require less work (templates being the
biggest problem).

- Damian

On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:58:06 -0700, "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote:
 I read the article - after we ship this version, we'll assess which
 direction to take the compiler that is most promising. Regardless,




 it will move towards the newer standards.

 Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amsi3$30d1$1 digitaldaemon.com>...
The issue is more serious. Please read the journal. Its not that we care
about them reviewing or not, it is about inching closer to the set


- Rajiv


Walter <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:9amogh$2u9g$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 DM 8 implements several of the new C99 features, like complex numbers.

 Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amgv2$2o33$1 digitaldaemon.com>...
CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of










compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there.










 there
been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the


every year henceforth...)