> On Jun 22, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Sean Farley <s...@farley.io> wrote: > > C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> writes: > >> Sorry I can't help, but +1 troll on this... >> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.scie...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Serious question: >>> >>> What are your reasons for using a language that is 27 years old? Terrible >>> compilers that have not been compliant with the current ISO C for 16 years? >>> Because MPICH does it? >>> >> >> Jeff - I work for a horrible, truly terrible compiler company >> (sarcasm) and empathetically (sincerely) I don't think MSVC supports >> C99. So just taking a random guess that it could be part of the >> justification to maintain that level of compatibility. > > I believe MSVC compilers have supported C99 for a year or more now.
If this is true could you point to a Microsoft document that states this? My google searches came up with nothing. If this is true then we might be able to move up to C99 in about 5 years when most people would have updated their Microsoft compilers to ones that support C99. Barry > The > only compiler I used on Windows that didn't support C99 was the MSVC for > python: > > https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=44266 > > which maybe is a valid use case? I dunno.
