Re: Simple C++ compiler test. How does yours fare?

• Next message: Mark Leisher: "Re: Simple C++ compiler test. How does yours fare?"
• Previous message: Doug Schiffer: "Re: Simple C++ compiler test. How does yours fare?"
• Maybe in reply to: Doug Schiffer: "Simple C++ compiler test. How does yours fare?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

unicode@Unicode.ORG wrote:
>
> unicode@Unicode.ORG wrote:
>
> > I coded a very simple test of the level of support for
> > wide character strings in a C/C++ compiler. Unfortunately
> > it shows that there are still compilers out there that
> > will have trouble even at the entry level of Unicode functionality.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Next, I'll be trying it under Microsoft C++ 4.0.
>
> Works OK under Microsoft Visual C++ 4.0, which I assume is
> what you mean. Non-Visual C++ 6.0 fails, because "stddef"
> doesn't define "wchar_t". Bogus.

Yes, I was thinking Visual C++, ver 4.0

Thanks for the input!

• Next message: Mark Leisher: "Re: Simple C++ compiler test. How does yours fare?"
• Previous message: Doug Schiffer: "Re: Simple C++ compiler test. How does yours fare?"
• Maybe in reply to: Doug Schiffer: "Simple C++ compiler test. How does yours fare?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT