X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Date: 07 Jan 2004 07:56:57 +0200
Message-Id: <ubrpgb8t2.fsf@elta.co.il>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <btfhok$int$1@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au> (bdeck@lycos.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Does using '-std=c99' with gcc 3.3.x cause '__STRICT_ANSI__' to be defined?
References: <btarqo$kgr$1 AT au-nws-0001 DOT flow DOT com DOT au> <3FF9241B DOT 2060501 AT earthlink DOT net> <btcs0a$ti5$1 AT au-nws-0001 DOT flow DOT com DOT au> <btemt9$rf4$2 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> <btfhok$int$1 AT au-nws-0001 DOT flow DOT com DOT au>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "bdeck" <bdeck AT lycos DOT co DOT uk>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:03:02 +0100
> 
> > DJGPP isn't a C99 implementation, right now, so it's not a particular surprise it
> > doesn't work if you tell the compiler to assume it is.
> 
> Ah, that's the point! But I thought C99 compliance was a goal of DJGPP
> 2.0.4, or?

True as far as the goal goes, but it looks like that we won't be 100%
there yet even in v2.04, although many missing functions required by
C9x are already in the CVS.  Volunteers are welcome to add the ones
that aren't.