Hmm, both of these links refer to C99 Standard Library they do not refer to the C99 standard language. Anywhere that says the language standard?
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Sean Farley <s...@farley.io> wrote: > > Barry Smith <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> writes: > >>> 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. > > It's been there since Visual Studio 2013 (I can confirm that 2013 > supports C99 on my vm): > > https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2013/07/19/c99-library-support-in-visual-studio-2013/