[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-gcc-list] Makefile Procyon AVRlib vs AVR-libc and ANSI C

From: Russell Shaw
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Makefile Procyon AVRlib vs AVR-libc and ANSI C
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:01:53 +1000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050914 Debian/1.7.11-1

Joerg Wunsch wrote:
Patrick Blanchard <address@hidden> wrote:

Interest in supporting the new C99 features appears to be
mixed. Whereas GCC and several other compilers now support most of
the new features of C99, the compilers maintained by Microsoft and
Borland do not, and these two companies do not seem to be interested
in adding such support.

Who would care about them?

Microsofties are usually proud that they are ``C++ programmers'', they
program everything in C++ even if it's not C++ at all. ;-)  As most of
the new C99 features have been adopted from C++, it's somewhat
surprising though that these compiler vendors don't seem to be
interested in implementing C99 -- most of the stuff they need is
probably already there.

To stay more in line with our target architecture: IAR's compiler
(ICCAVR) has probably about the most complete C99 implementation I've
seen so far, up to the point where it doesn't make much sense anymore
for the AVR (like full wide character support and such).  Well,
they've got bugs and deficiencies in their C99 (like their _Pragma()
implementation which is severely limited), but at least it seems
they've been rather eager to implement C99.

They probably did it for their larger non-avr CPUs, then used it
as a selling point for their smaller CPUs, even if not all of it
is very practical.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]