Re: [AD] al_list_config_entries

[Chris <chris.kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Michal Molhanec wrote:
> none of the microsoft compilers was, is or will be C99 compliant. AFAIK 
> they have said that they do not plan to add full C99 support (maybe some 
> few parts).

If VC doesn't even plan on adding a good portion of C99 features, I say 
we don't even bother with VC. This is the same kind of crap they've done 
in the past to break existing standards simply because "they don't want 
to". Unless there's something inherently wrong with parts of a standard, 
there's no reason not to attempt to support it. It's there for a reason.

> as allegro is not c99 i don't see this as a problem

AFAIK, 4.3+ will be. As you can already see in some parts of the API, it 
now uses C99 typedefs to be 64-bit safe. Currently Allegro defines them 
itself if they don't exist (and in the process assuming a 32-bit 
target), so it's still C89 compliant. But now it should work as expected 
in 64-bit mode (and if VC doesn't want to support these typedefs, you 
can expect it to not have 64-bit support with Allegro for a while).