Re: C23 on MSVC

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 14:06:05 +0200, Michael S wrote:

May be, because majority of additions to the Standard were codifying
existing gcc practice?

>
Interesting. When I ventured a few months ago in this group that GCC had
become the closest we have to a de-facto-standard C implementation, quite
a few people objected.
>
Did you know GCC allows nested function definitions, with references to
uplevel locals? I wonder how long it is before that makes it into ANSI/ISO
C ...

There's no contradiction.  The assertion (on which I offer no opinion)
was that the majority of additions to the standard have codified
existing gcc practice.  This deons't imply that most gcc extensions find
their way into the standard.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with that. In the situation where gcc team
is the only capable team interested in further development of C
language, it is the most logical outcome.

>
What, no love for LLVM/clang?

My impression is that clang mostly follows gcc in terms of language
feature and extensions.  Its innovations are more in the internals of
the implementation.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */