CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of various compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there. Has there been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the exercise every year henceforth...)

DM 8 implements several of the new C99 features, like complex numbers.

Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amgv2$2o33$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of various compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there. Has
there
>been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the
exercise
>every year henceforth...)
>
>
>

The issue is more serious. Please read the journal. Its not that we care about them reviewing or not, it is about inching closer to the set standard. - Rajiv


Walter <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:9amogh$2u9g$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> DM 8 implements several of the new C99 features, like complex numbers.
>
> Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amgv2$2o33$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
> >CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of various compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there. Has
> there
> >been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the
> exercise
> >every year henceforth...)
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I have read the whole article online last week and did look into the test-result zipfiles. IMHO it would be nice to see DMC there mentioned as well.

Rajiv Bhagwat wrote:

> The issue is more serious. Please read the journal. Its not that we care about them reviewing or not, it is about inching closer to the set standard. - Rajiv
>
> Walter <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:9amogh$2u9g$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> > DM 8 implements several of the new C99 features, like complex numbers.
> >
> > Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amgv2$2o33$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
> > >CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of various compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there. Has
> > there
> > >been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the
> > exercise
> > >every year henceforth...)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

I read the article - after we ship this version, we'll assess which direction to take the compiler that is most promising. Regardless, though, it will move towards the newer standards.

Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amsi3$30d1$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>The issue is more serious. Please read the journal. Its not that we care about them reviewing or not, it is about inching closer to the set
standard.
>- Rajiv
>
>
>Walter <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:9amogh$2u9g$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>> DM 8 implements several of the new C99 features, like complex numbers.
>>
>> Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amgv2$2o33$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>> >CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of various compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there. Has
>> there
>> >been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the
>> exercise
>> >every year henceforth...)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

My two penny's worth :>

I would love to see a move towards the ANSI C++ standard.

However I can see that it would be easier to move towards the C99 standard as this would require less work (templates being the biggest problem).

- Damian

On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:58:06 -0700, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> I read the article - after we ship this version, we'll assess which direction to take the compiler that is most promising. Regardless, though, it will move towards the newer standards.
> 
> Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amsi3$30d1$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
> >The issue is more serious. Please read the journal. Its not that we care about them reviewing or not, it is about inching closer to the set
> standard.
> >- Rajiv
> >
> >
> >Walter <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:9amogh$2u9g$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> DM 8 implements several of the new C99 features, like complex numbers.
> >>
> >> Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amgv2$2o33$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
> >> >CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of various compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there. Has
> >> there
> >> >been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the
> >> exercise
> >> >every year henceforth...)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 

Both C99 and C++98 are important, since we ship both a C and a C++ compiler. I happened to have an interest in numerical programming, however, so the numerics features of C99 were a priority.

Damian Dixon wrote in message <1103_986806731@dilbert>...
>My two penny's worth :>
>
>I would love to see a move towards the ANSI C++ standard.
>
>However I can see that it would be easier to move towards the C99 standard as this would require less work (templates being the biggest problem).
>
>- Damian
>
>On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:58:06 -0700, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> I read the article - after we ship this version, we'll assess which direction to take the compiler that is most promising. Regardless,
though,
>> it will move towards the newer standards.
>>
>> Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amsi3$30d1$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>> >The issue is more serious. Please read the journal. Its not that we care about them reviewing or not, it is about inching closer to the set
>> standard.
>> >- Rajiv
>> >
>> >
>> >Walter <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:9amogh$2u9g$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>> >> DM 8 implements several of the new C99 features, like complex numbers.
>> >>
>> >> Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9amgv2$2o33$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>> >> >CUJ April 2001 carries an artical about confirmance testing of
various
>> >> >compilers against the standard. DM compiler does not figure there.
Has
>> >> there
>> >> >been any attempt to figure where it stands? (They will be doing the
>> >> exercise
>> >> >every year henceforth...)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>