Board index » cppbuilder » C++ Builder 2006 C99 Support

2006-01-12 09:17:55 AM
cppbuilder95
Hi,
Does C++ Builder have C99 support? I read somewhere that it would, but I
see no mention of it in the marketing docs.
Thanks,
dick
 

Richard Myers wrote:
.a
 

 

{smallsort}

The bad thing with C99 it's that the comitee extended C89 with incompatible
features with C++.
So now we have: old-C, C89, C99, C++, BCB/C++, MS-VC++ (including 6.0),
MS-C#, MS-Managed/unamanaged-C++, C++/CLI.
IMHO: Too many 'standards', no more to say, I need to work (not to learn new
fancy standards).
It's a big job not only building/upgrading the compiler, the RTL needs to be
'tuned' for differents compileres and plataforms.
Saludos
Sebastian
"Jennifer-Ashley" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >escribi?en el mensaje

Sebastian Ledesma [Solidyne Labs] wrote:
first standardized version of C.
BCB/C++ and MS-VC++ use __ extensions as allowed by the C++ standard,
but seek to follow the C++ standard otherwise.
C# is its own computer language with its own standard, is not C++ and
was never meant to be.
Managed C++ is akin to BCB/C++ or MS-VC++ with more abundant __
extensions, and sought to follow the C++ standard. It has been
superceded by C++/CLI.
C++/CLI is its own computer language with its own standard, for the most
part very closely related to C++. Outside of its non-keyword extensions
to C++, its own standard closely follows the C++ standard, and with its
non-keyword extensions it follows its own standard.
Essentially among all your choices there are 4 standards for 4 different
languages, C, C++, C#, and C++/CLI. The third is not really related to
the other three, and should not have been brought up when discussing
C/C++ standards. Its misnomer is probably because Microsoft wanted to
attract C++ programmers and, because of their legal problems with Sun,
did not want to call it Java#, as an example, although it is much closer
to Java then C++.

It appears as though BuilderX supported C99 through the Dinkumware
libraries, which are supposedly 100% ansi and C99 compliant. Why would they
remove it?
dick
"Alex Bakaev [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message

Well, dont' know if that was true, but the BuilderX compiler and the BCB2006
compiler are two totally different products. It's not that they removed it
from BCB2006, they never "added" it to the compiler it is based on, wich is
the 5.x line. BCBX was a new compiler 6.x.
--
Rodrigo Gómez
www.rodrigogomez.com.mx/gallery/
"Richard Myers" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >escribi?en el mensaje

Rodrigo Gómez wrote:
compiler was still the same as in BCB6 (plus some fixes, I suppose).
.a
 

"Richard Myers" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
compiler/preprocessor support.
For example: macros with variable number of arguments require a change
to the preprocessor. Support for "long long" must be built into
the compiler (though Borland does have __int64) and so on.
--
Chris (TeamB);
 

Uh... well... I have to confess that I haven't fully understand what's the
"front-end" and so on. Haven't searched for much info on this.
What you're saying is: some part of the compiler was new, based on the EDG
front-end, but parts of the compiler were still version 5? Or they shipped
two different compilers, one based on the 5.x line and the new one, 6.x,
based on the EDG front-end? Don't remember if this was the case.
Regards,
--
Rodrigo Gómez
www.rodrigogomez.com.mx/gallery/
"Alex Bakaev [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >escribi?en el mensaje

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Rodrigo Gómez" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
--
-David
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
 

Rodrigo Gómez < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
what you've written and so nastily barks at you when you
forget a semicolon. It generates an intermediate format
(often called a "parse tree", since it has a tree-like
structure). That intermediate format is usually further
modified before it's fed into the compiler's back-end,
which emits a program in the target language. For C++
usually the target language is the machine language of
the target machine. (However, some compilers -- notably
Comeau -- emit C code which then needs to get translated
into machine code by some C compiler. And I suppose VC
emits IL when you compile C++ code for .NET.)
compiler of the 5.6.x flavour. There was, however, a
preview compiler which used the EDG front-end and the
Dinkumware library. I supposed this would have supported
C99, as both EDG and Dinkumware do so.
But that's moot, because CBX was stillborn and it seems
EDG's front-end isn't used anymore for BDS' C++ compiler.
(IMO most likely because it doesn't support any of the
VCL extensions.) A library alone won't help getting full
C99 support because there's changes between C89 and C99
which require the compiler to change, too.
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
 

Hello Schobi,
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Now it's pretty clear to me.
Regards,
--
Rodrigo Gómez
www.rodrigogomez.com.mx/gallery/