Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: constexpr keyword is unnecessary
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:43:39 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <20241021194049.668@kylheku.com>
References: <veb5fi$3ll7j$1@dont-email.me>
 <877ca5q84u.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vf0ijd$3u54q$1@dont-email.me>
 <vf0l98$3un4n$1@dont-email.me> <vf0ps2$3vf16$1@dont-email.me>
 <vf2mno$c52l$1@dont-email.me> <87iktmpr2f.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vf4t01$qo5f$1@dont-email.me> <87bjzdp4il.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vf6gj7$13ia1$4@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:43:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="852ec3959dfd4aaffc70ec38f2d7083e";
	logging-data="1387400"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uG48h7bzadx7JgjnHEwrMxfbYY4LXV8k="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tY9J6gS8W4WIHSovRPZ+7p+1Af4=
Bytes: 2625

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.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca