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

[Barry Smith]

  Hmm, both of these links refer to C99 Standard Library  they do not refer to the C99 standard language. Anywhere that says the language standard?


> On Jun 22, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Sean Farley <sean at farley.io> wrote:
> 
> 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/