Update to c99status.html

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>]

This patch (applied) updates c99status.html for work that has been done
and to take account of TC1 (which corrects one error in the list of
changes that had already been corrected in c99status.html).

Index: c99status.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/c99status.html,v
retrieving revision 1.27
diff -u -r1.27 c99status.html
--- c99status.html	2001/05/25 19:38:34	1.27
+++ c99status.html	2001/11/12 22:52:05
@@ -8,7 +8,8 @@
 <h1>Status of C99 features in GCC</h1>
 
 <p>This table is based on the list in the foreword to the printed
-standard ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E).</p>
+standard ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E), as amended by ISO/IEC
+9899:1999/Cor.1:2001 (E).</p>
 
 <p>Where "Library Issue" is listed in conjunction with some other
 status, this means that some compiler support is needed for the
@@ -263,8 +264,8 @@
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>conversion of array to pointer not limited to lvalues</em></td>
+    <td></td><td>Done</td>
     <td></td><td></td>
-    <td></td><td>Missing</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>relaxed constraints on aggregate<br>and union initialization</em></td>
@@ -308,7 +309,7 @@
 <li>The extra definitions in <code>&lt;float.h&gt;</code> (of
 <code>FLT_EVAL_METHOD</code> and <code>DECIMAL_DIG</code>) are
 included in most versions of <code>&lt;float.h&gt;</code>, but not yet
-<code>float-c4x.h</code>, <code>float-m68k.h</code> or
+<code>float-c4x.h</code> or
 <code>float-vax.h</code>.  Also, some targets such as Solaris use the
 system <code>&lt;float.h&gt;</code> but do not fix it to add these
 definitions.</li>
@@ -325,12 +326,6 @@
 <li>In some places, <code>-pedantic</code> warnings don't take proper
 account of the standard version selected.</li>
 
-<li><code>__func__</code> should not take part in string
-concatenation, should be a distinct array from any identical string
-literal, and should have <code>const</code>-qualified element type.
-See <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&amp;pr=460&amp;database=gcc";>PR
-c/460</a> and testcases <code>c99-func-[234].c</code>.</li>
-
 <li>GCC doesn't have <code>wprintf</code>, <code>wscanf</code> and
 <code>wcsftime</code> format checking support.</li>
 
@@ -354,14 +349,12 @@
 declarations is present, the semantics are not; and in general the
 implementation of VLAs has not been checked against C99 requirements.</li>
 
-<li>Compound literals have some problems: GCC doesn't fully support compound
-literals of array type (some spurious errors about non-lvalue arrays
-may occur when they are used); non-<code>const</code> compound literals need
+<li>Compound literals have some problems: non-constant compound
+literals are not properly treated as lvalues;
+non-<code>const</code> compound literals need
 to be put in a temporary of appropriate storage duration (possibly
 copied from read-only storage, depending on the literal; or placed in
-writable storage, when of static storage duration).  Getting this
-right requires the new block scopes for selection and iteration
-statements to be done first.</li>
+writable storage, when of static storage duration).</li>
 
 <li>The constraints on where structures with flexible array members
 may be used (that they, and unions containing them (possibly
@@ -369,16 +362,17 @@
 arrays) are not checked.</li>
 
 <li>The information provided by <code>static</code> in parameter array
-declarators is not used for optimization.</li>
+declarators is not used for optimization.  It might make sense to use
+it in future in conjunction with <a href="projects/prefetch.html">work
+on prefetching</a>.</li>
 
-<li>The list above differs from that in the C99 standard as follows:
+<li>The list above differs from that in the C99 standard (as amended
+by TC1) as follows:
 "LIA compatibility annex" is removed, since it refers to C99's
 conformance to another standard rather than something for C
 implementations to do.  The <code>&lt;stdint.h&gt;</code> and
 <code>&lt;inttypes.h&gt;</code> entries have been separated, but are a
-single entry in C99.  The foreword to C99 wrongly refers to the
-<code>VA_COPY</code> macro, but in the normative text (7.15.1.2) it is
-<code>va_copy</code>, so that correction has been made to the list.</li>
+single entry in C99.</li>
 
 </ul>
 

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk