[petsc-dev] NEVER put // into PETSc code. PETSc is C89, the only real C.

[Barry Smith]

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Sean Farley <sean at farley.io> wrote:
> 
> C Bergström <cbergstrom at 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.science at 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.

  Barry

> The
> only compiler I used on Windows that didn't support C99 was the MSVC for
> python:
> 
> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=44266
> 
> which maybe is a valid use case? I dunno.