4 ms·

And C99?

• koenigdavidmj 11y ago
  You know that's never going to happen. However, the parts necessary for C++ are implemented. To quote the article, this is what is missing: "Our C99 Standard Library implementation is complete, except for tgmath.h (which is irrelevant in C++) and the CX_LIMITED_RANGE/FP_CONTRACT pragma macros." That, and some preprocessor incompatibilities.
• pjmlp 11y ago
  Microsoft already stated multiple times they are only doing what is required by the C++ standard and relevant customers.
• albinofrenchy 11y ago
  https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh409293.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh409293.aspx 2013 has a lot, and it looks like 2015 almost closes the gap. I'm content with the 2013 additions, but I simply do not understand why c99 wasn't fully supported 10 years ago, much less in the latest VS edition. C++ is better in many ways but when you need to compile C specific code, it is incredibly frustrating.
  • jlarocco 11y ago
    Microsoft have said a few times that they make a C++ compiler and that some C99 features will never be implemented unless they have to do it for C++. It's frustrating, but not likely to change.
  • justin66 11y ago
    > I simply do not understand why c99 wasn't fully supported 10 years ago, much less in the latest VS edition MSFT doesn't need it and 99% of the compiler's users do not need it. I'm not happy about it but I can understand why it's not a priority for them.