Re: constexpr keyword is unnecessary

On 10/21/2024 7:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2024-10-21, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/21/2024 1:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]

MS is in a somewhat different position than other C compiler
vendors. They decided - for various reasons - not to support C99 other
than parts that had direct correspondence with C++ features.  Without
having followed any of the proceedings, I suspect the reason VLAs are
optional in C23 is because MS wants to avoid adding more than they
have to before being able to jump to (approximate) C23 conformance.
"constexpr" will be relatively easy for them, as they have it in C++
already.

>
Yes, Microsoft pretty much skipped over C99, but if I recall correctly
their current C compiler has reasonably good support for C11.

>
Last time I checked it did not have full support for C11 threads.

 It's a pointless wrapper for POSIX threads, which differ from Windows
threads.
 There is no reason to use it. Wherever POSIX threads are not found,
you can just implement *that* or find an implementation, or a
a subset that is good enough for your needs.
 POSIX threads are no more or less standard than ISO C threads.
It is a gratuitous duplication.
 

The only compiler that I found that has full support for C11 threads, atomics and membars was PellesC. The last time I checked MSVC for full support was around a year and a half ago.
http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc
They had some issues with some atomics that I pointed out:
https://forum.pellesc.de/index.php?topic=7167.msg27217#msg27217
https://forum.pellesc.de/index.php?topic=7311.msg27764#msg27764