Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development

Compiling Code::Blocks with the MS compiler

<< < (2/5) > >>

takeshimiya:

--- Quote from: 280Z28 on January 22, 2006, 05:52:17 am ---Fixed unchecked pointer errors, etc.

Fixed incorrectly declared and incorrectly used custom events

--- End quote ---

That demonstrates that compiling against more than one compiler is always good.  :)

280Z28:
Whoever wrote depslib needs to be informed that in C, all variable declarations go at the beginning of their scope. Microsoft's compiler is rather strict about language rules. :)

Ceniza:

--- Quote from: 280Z28 ---Whoever wrote depslib needs to be informed that in C, all variable declarations go at the beginning of their scope. Microsoft's compiler is rather strict about language rules. :)
--- End quote ---

And somebody should tell Microsoft C99 is already out (right, since 1999) and it allows variable declarations just like in C++ ("mixed declarations and code" like the standard calls them), and many things more.

280Z28:

--- Quote from: Ceniza on January 22, 2006, 06:49:13 am ---
--- Quote from: 280Z28 ---Whoever wrote depslib needs to be informed that in C, all variable declarations go at the beginning of their scope. Microsoft's compiler is rather strict about language rules. :)
--- End quote ---

And somebody should tell Microsoft C99 is already out (right, since 1999) and it allows variable declarations just like in C++ ("mixed declarations and code" like the standard calls them), and many things more.

--- End quote ---

I think they stopped that because people still writing C code in 2005 are doing it for portability and not for high level language features. Not really sure, but I know reordering the declaration fixed the build problems.

Ceniza:
Stopped what? Who? Features are there to implement and use. That's what I hate the most of MS: they give a *** about standards. You can forgive MS Visual C++ 6.0 for being that horrible for C++ 'cause it was released the same year of the first ISO standard for C++, but a recent version of the C compiler still using some kind of C89/C90? C'mon, it's 2006. I think they've had enough time, and obviously money, to implement that.

And add to that those "deprecated by MS" C functions in Visual C++ 2005. Those functions haven't been deprecated by the ISO, no reason for a compiler to throw warnings about!

BTW, portability in this case is highly related to following standards.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page