Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Don't be fooled by cpp.sh Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2020 20:40:27 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 21 Message-ID: <87d0bxmc3o.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <70391932-ccbc-4bc7-b693-881ab06eb6d3@googlegroups.com> <9j851fhqe4focdnq2uie27brr8n7icpj2h@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d79f02f3814f7005520734cd2961b617"; logging-data="8403"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7Z97YAwm8FwPTn+8Amjx3" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:S3cXNbDoFllmwivs1KACwP7nVDM= sha1:P3+ImnLKL1jRxwlCyrpzg7V3L5g= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:71166 Robert Wessel writes: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:11:17 +0100, David Brown > wrote: [...] >>I really don't understand why these were made optional in C11. Who is >>going to make a compiler that is C11 compliant but not C99 compliant? >>Who is going to be capable of making a C11 compiler but find supporting >>VLA's or complex numbers a major issue? > > My point exactly. I don't even understand why complex was optional in > C99 for freestanding implementations. Freestanding implementations don't have to provide library functions, and complex numbers aren't very useful without the functions declared in such as creal() and cimag(). -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com [Note updated email address] Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */