From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:27:42 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <97e2d17d77f56906982f8a3ae34c486c@chula.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F144B53.6070906@gmail.com>
References: <CAJ1xhMUwAqtCmJSh3xUVVWS0fhAj4py2LtMfbeVuai2k2o3hzg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOw7k5ifn8knOApHOCY5ZM-8TDJaXKPReHAhB-ZYgSxYFRi7Rw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F144B53.6070906@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] assembly syntax in plan 9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5d3541c4-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> [Or we could just skip C99, and make the compiler C11-compliant by
> pre-defining __STDC_NO_VLA__. =E2=98=BA]

i think the the compilers have taken c99 under advisement.  see
/sys/src/cmd/cc/c99.  most reasonable features of c99 have
been implemented.=20
of the remaining entries in the "Not Done (yet?)" section, 9, 19 and
and 25 stand out to me as the most worth implementing.  (although proper
implementation of 25 is likely to break some things.) other folks might
be more excited about _Imaginary, _Complex and
_Surelythisisobscureenoughtonotbreakstuff.

but otoh, we seem to have bigger fish to fry.

- erik