Re: [OT] lcc first experience

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Harald van D?k said:
> 
>> On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:45:24 -0400, CBFalconer wrote:
>>> If you ever actually try "-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" on gcc, you will
>>> discover that (barring possible errors) it doesn't embrace-and-extend.
>> This translation unit is accepted without any diagnostic by gcc -W
-Wall
>> - ansi -pedantic:
>>
>> int __attribute__((const)) zero(void) { return 0; }
>>
>> Does that mean the code is valid C, that this is an error in GCC, or
that
>> GCC does embrace-and-extend?
> 
> Implementations are permitted to provide extensions that do not affect
the 
> behaviour of a strictly conforming program. The above code is not
strictly 
> conforming.
> 

Of course if implementations are called "lcc-win" you will start ranting
with no end.

It took me an enormous effort to implement my extensions without adding
any new keywords, making them 100% compatible with the C standard.

I was  always told that "I am forced to emit a diagnostic at non 
conforming code", that I am non standard etc etc. But obviously for
gcc you use other criteria!

gcc can do whatever it wants because it is GNU and linux, and that is
good.

lcc-win is windows and non GNU hence it is bad.

Period.



-- 
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32