3 ms·
All the compilers I ever used in my professional career could do C99 but most companies limit themselves to ANSI C (good luck convincing anyone that the term is
by Paul_S 10y ago
All the compilers I ever used in my professional career could do C99 but most companies limit themselves to ANSI C (good luck convincing anyone that the term is incorrect!) for "compatibility" reasons and it's got nothing to do with Microsoft (who uses their compilers for C anyway?).
Your prize for pointing out that the usage of ANSI C is incorrect is: disappointment in humanity.
- to3m 10y agoI used to use VC++ to build C code sometimes. People write software in C, and if you use VC++ you might want to compile it. C and C++ are not the same, and the fixing-up process can be time-consuming and error-prone, even assuming the code didn't go full C99 with anonymous aggregates and designated initializers. Fortunately, these days VS2013+ do an OK job of C99.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- marssaxman 10y agoMy experience is that C99 has been universal outside the Microsoft world for years now - even for embedded programming. I can't remember the last time there was any trouble using it.
- Gibbon1 10y agoFar as I get Microsoft is a C++ shop which is why they didn't care about C after 89. For embedded stuff, my memory is hazy but I think much of what became C99 was available a number of years before the standard was released. Any event, 1999 was 17 years ago.