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

[Sean Farley]

Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> writes:

>> 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.

It's been there since Visual Studio 2013 (I can confirm that 2013
supports C99 on my vm):

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2013/07/19/c99-library-support-in-visual-studio-2013/