Does SASC have a secret C99 switch?

[ChaosLord]

It would be nice if I could sometimes use C99 features in SASC.  Is it possible?

For example declaring variables where they are needed, not always in the first few lines of a 'block'.

[kas1e]

The same question from me http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=18951

but still not have answer. I think time to read all sasc documentation Becouse 'static declaration' problem already f**ked up for me ..

[SamuraiCrow]

I think SAS was out before the C99 specification was complete.  If you want C99 try VBCC.

[Piru]

@ChaosLord

Does SASC have a secret C99 switch?

No.

It would be nice if I could sometimes use C99 features in SASC. Is it possible?

No.

[ChaosLord]

I think I found it here! Experimental C++ compiler.
It should have the feature we want.

https://www.warped.com/amiga/

But the file has been deleted!
 :bigcry:  :bigcry:  :bigcry:

[Piru]

@ChaosLord

That stuff has nothing to do with C99 though.

Also, the C++ stuff wasn't very complete I'm afraid.

[ChaosLord]

@Piru

I was under the impression that most C++ compilers, even unfinished experimental versions had many C99 features. (?)

[kas1e]

vbcc is good, but little slower over sasc.
btw, only one think in sasc is annoing me - declaring variables in statemn blocks. Maybe any ideas to avoid/path it/etc ? Maybe kind of macros,or somethink like ..

[Karlos]

VBCC is handy as a C99 compiler, although it doesn't implement everything in the C99 specification. That said, I haven't had any problems with it.

[ChaosLord]

Does VBCC have a good graphical debugger as SASC does?

[Piru]

@ChaosLord

I was under the impression that most C++ compilers, even unfinished experimental versions had many C99 features. (?)

I guess it depends on your definition of 'many'.

Regardless C++ isn't C.

[Karlos]

Piru wrote:

Regardless C++ isn't C.

True. If you write good clean C code, it should compile fine under C++ but there are more caveats than just the non implicit void * cast. You'd have to be unlucky to run into them, however.

For AmigaOS, the only real syntactical gotcha I ever stumbled across was the library base structure name / library base pointer name issue which was down the the deprecation of the 'struct' keyword beyond defining the structure:

struct IntuitionBase* IntuitionBase;

is fine in C, but in ANSI C++ it caused problems.

IntuitionBase* IntuitionBase;

was also a problem, I had to use

IntuitionBase* ::IntuitionBase;

:-)