On Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I don't have a recommendation to change or keep the current name,
> however I'll note that changing the name of a single file is going
> to be even simpler then the below which I just applied.
And this addresses three pages to avoid the redirect I just p
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > I think it would be appropriate to redirect all the c99status.html files
> > for particular GCC versions to this file, now it covers all versions.
>
> To make sure I understand: you are proposing we remove all
> individual c99status.html pages and
Hi Joseph,
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I've committed this patch to rework the page so it starts with a summary
> of the overall C99 state, then describes each feature by listing the GCC
> version in which it was substantially supported (not necessarily obscure
> corner cases)
GCC's c99status.html seem persistently to confuse people into thinking the
state of C99 support is worse than it is, by listing things as "Missing"
or "Broken" when in fact what's missing or broken isn't needed to
implement C99 but is some optional extra for ideal support, or is only
broken or
