Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Microsoft Will now support C11 and C17 standard!!!!!!!!!! Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 23:20:57 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 23 Message-ID: <86d02i1e46.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <87o8m4o0vv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6359d394b198f332ce01894f26394bb7"; logging-data="17016"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SQc+CykoMm7Vd4pZ/siNG5crVbI3snZ4=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:DkoTp0byPjps6RoB3LnB+1q4lpU= sha1:eIT03TgMR8bq9U9SnEke6hFDRPc= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:155144 Ben Bacarisse writes: > Leo writes: > >> This is good news for those cross-compiling their software. Not sure >> how hopeful I am though, does MSVC even support C99 properly now? > > That won't ever happen. C11 made VLAs optional and that cleared the way > for MS to support later standards. Do you know why Microsoft objected to VLAs? I've searched the web a bit but wasn't able to find anything with any real substance. > It's a shame, because the baby of variably modified array types was > thrown out with the VLA bath water. I don't think any of MS's > objections apply to variably modified types in the absence of VLAs I agree about variably modified types as contrasted with VLAs. But I confess to being somewhat baffled by the reaction that VLAs are a deal breaker. Implementing VLAs shouldn't be that hard, if one is willing to accept a minimally usable implementation. So I wonder what it was that Microsoft found so difficult to swallow.