Re: [OT] lcc first experience

Eric Sosman wrote:
> Harald van Dijk wrote:
>> 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?
> 
>     No, no, and no, as I suspect you already no.
> 

Obviously if lcc-win would have something like that you would
rant with no end!

It took me a LOT of effort to implement ALL my extensions without
introducing ANY keywords, as the standard requires. But no way, I was
always branded as illegal, non standard, whatever.

When gcc does the same in a MUCH more intrusive way, then it is OK of
course, even if the -ansi flag is present!

When I have forgotten some function in my stdlib.h that shouldn't be 
defined there there are rants without end, "lcc-win conforms to no
standard" etc etc.

When gcc does something much worse with the -ansi flag present nobody
says anything.

Great!



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