Could anyone make me a Windows compile...?

[mar]

Congrats Evert.
Answer is yes and yes (btw. there are not that many ways to do snprintf using varargs

[mar]

Ok sent you a PM with new win compiles.

[Evert]

Just uploaded them to my website. Thanks!

The tweaks to the source are fine and committed. I should really switch off C99 here to avoid the issue.

[mar]

Unfortunately it's not C99 at fault but Microsoft compiler not supporting it...
I really don't think it would be that hard for them but they probably focus on C++ (they still don't support full 11 iirc).

[Evert]

Unfortunately it's not C99 at fault but Microsoft compiler not supporting it...
I really don't think it would be that hard for them but they probably focus on C++ (they still don't support full 11 iirc).

Well, I'd love to hate them for it too, but I think their compiler is technically a C++ compiler rather than a C compiler so it gets a pass from me on those grounds. Of course a C++ compiler doesn't really have to support the older C standard (C90?) either.

Is there a compiler that has full C++11 support? I thought GCC was also somewhat incomplete in that regard.

[mar]

Well I don't hate them for that, just saying that supporting C99 would probably not be a big deal and as you said it's most likely not a priority for them. It sure would be nice to have C99 support (and POSIX , most likely not going to happen.

I guess clang has full C++11 support, not sure about gcc but I have the feeling that it has fulll support as well.
From what I understood msc had problems with constexpr which required significant amount of work for them (I think 2013 still doesn't support it but next version should).

[mar]

Oh... something seems wrong with the windows binaries.
Running analysis from console it's using 1-3% CPU but it ought to use around 13%...
Running under a GUI it goes up to 7-8% but still only half of what I'd expect,
hitting only some 55knps
I admit I only verified bench count this time...
I'll look into it once I'm back from work.

[mar]

hmm....
Sjaak spends 54% time in GetConsoleMode and 18% in PeekNamedPipe...
I guess the win version needs to improve input polling a bit

[kbhearn]

Well I don't hate them for that, just saying that supporting C99 would probably not be a big deal and as you said it's most likely not a priority for them. It sure would be nice to have C99 support (and POSIX :), most likely not going to happen.

I guess clang has full C++11 support, not sure about gcc but I have the feeling that it has fulll support as well.
From what I understood msc had problems with constexpr which required significant amount of work for them (I think 2013 still doesn't support it but next version should).

From what i understand since 4.8.1 all but 1 proposal that made C++11 has been implemented in gcc but the implementations are still labelled experimental. source: https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html

[mar]

Ok the fix is rather simple. A typo I guess:
keyboard_input_waiting:

Code: Select all

   if (virgin) {
      virgin = false;    // instead of virgin = true

now I get the expected 13%. however when run manually from the console it's still using only a fraction of CPU time.
EDIT: +100 elo for Sjaak on Windows now in blitz I guess