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

• Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "RE: Unicameral"
• Previous message: Mark Davis: "Re: regular expressions"
• Maybe in reply to: Doug Schiffer: "Simple C++ compiler test. How does yours fare?"
• Next in thread: Doug Schiffer: "Re: 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 ]

[email protected] 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.

-- 
John Cowan						[email protected]
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban

• Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "RE: Unicameral"
• Previous message: Mark Davis: "Re: regular expressions"
• Maybe in reply to: Doug Schiffer: "Simple C++ compiler test. How does yours fare?"
• Next in thread: Doug Schiffer: "Re: 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