This is a discussion on strange compiler within the C Programming forums, part of the General Programming Boards category; Originally Posted by @nthony It's a shame the english language isn't completely boolean quantifiable huh? Maybe. Quzah....
> Quincy 99
You do know the difference between an IDE and a compiler right?
Because all of those things are IDEs which basically come 'out of the box' with the MinGW port of gcc as the actual compiler.
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
I support http://www.ukip.org/ as the first necessary step to a free Europe.
I suppose also, if you want to get a little more sophisticated you can try to increase your stack size. I know how to do that in assembly language, but I'm not sure about the various C compilers. Microsoft no doubt has some pragmas that support it and maybe gcc does to. Unfortunately MS has decided in recent versions of their compilers that inline assembly is simply not necessary any more.
Dev-C++ will be gcc based and hence has their C99 limitations (eg no VLAs and no complex number support). By the way the reason why I want C99 complex number support is that a complex number is essentially double c ; an array of 2 doubles. That plays nicely with Fortran which is why they chose this.
Pelles I am well aware of. It is missing several C99 features as well. VLAs are only partially supported, if they are dirt simple. I don't think for example you could dynamically allocate an array of pointers to some other complex type and I don't think it would allocate multidimensional arrays (not that I ever use C multi-D arrays.) Also of course, no one supports complex.
In other words the support for C99 isn't exactly overwhelming.