3 ms·
And that's just the "big compilers" supporting the "big platforms". If you're shipping some bespoke embedded platform where the toolchain/OS integration was cus
by 0xcde4c3db 4y ago
And that's just the "big compilers" supporting the "big platforms". If you're shipping some bespoke embedded platform where the toolchain/OS integration was custom work, you might very well never upgrade the compiler and just pick a new one when you're forced to define a new platform due to the hardware going EOL.
- leeter 4y agoI'm mixed on this personally, on one hand... I get it. Having curl on the XYZ micro controller you're using for a project is good. At the same time the only reason MSVC added c99 support was community pressure because major projects said "we don't care about MSVC anymore we're moving on"[1]. So clearly there is a correlation between vendors and versions. If the vendors don't feel pressure to support newer versions then they'll just continue to ship the garbage they've been shipping for years. I personally don't have a good answer for this. Daniel very clearly has made his decision and I'll respect that as it's not my project. [1] Also because the C++ committee ignored Herb and just forced it into later C++ revs from a library perspective.
- TylerE 4y agoHow hard would it be to do something like C99 (or whatever) > LLVM IR > C89 (auto-generated, doesn't have to be human readable) > niche compiler?