[Info-vax] Device locked by non existing process.

[John Reagan]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 5:37:55 PM UTC-4, seasoned_geek wrote:
> On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 7:56:12 PM UTC-5, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > On 4/23/2018 11:43 AM, seasoned_geek wrote:
> > > char *ptr2 = NULL;
> > > 
> > > For a very long time we _had_ to do this. Now it is bad practice and later C standards introduced nullptr.
> > 
> > The later C standard called C++ 11?
> > 
> > :-)
> > 
> 
> Obviously you haven't written C on OpenVMS lately. The current C compiler is a downgrade to what I had installed. This version has pieces of C99 stubbed out, without reserving words which were stubbed. Other segments aren't touched at all while a token few portions of the standard were actually implemented.
> 
> Had the current C compiler been placed in a charred oak barrel upon its release, it would be some mighty fine sipping whiskey by now.
> 
> Not that I read every message in here, but the last blurb I read about the C compiler for the x86 port is that it "might" finish off the C99 standard, leaving C11 __still__ a later standard which means the new style for() loop which mimics the Qt foreach() loop [sans the object copy] will be out of reach for years to come.

Can you tell me what parts that the compiler is missing?  My understanding is that the compiler conforms.  The RTL on the other hand is missing some headers (stdint.h in particular), a bunch of things are missing from inttypes.h, and there are missing printf/scanf options.  Plus a bunch of bugs...

Since we're using clang as the C++ compiler on x86, you should be able to run clang in C11 mode to get yourself a nice C11 compiler.  We'll have to do further work on the RTLs of course.