Re: [OT] lcc first experience

jacob navia wrote, On 09/05/08 18:56:
> 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.

Having no new keywords does not automatically make it conform to the 
standard.

> I was  always told that "I am forced to emit a diagnostic at non 
> conforming code",

No that is not what you have been told. You have been told that in 
conforming mode you have to produce the diagnostics that are required.

> that I am non standard etc etc. But obviously for
> gcc you use other criteria!

No, the same standard is applied, and this means that gcc does not 
conform to C99 and without "-ansi -pedantic" (or equivilant) it does not 
conform to any standard.

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

No, it is good because it provides (modulo bugs) a conforming mode.

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

No, the bad part is that you take it as a personal attack when a 
non-conformance is pointed out.

The not quite so bad part (but still not good) is that you have gone far 
enough on C99 to no longer conform to C90 but not so far as to conform 
to C99.

It is also bad that MS are not attempting going for C99 conformance and 
that progress towards it on gcc has become glacial in its slowness, but 
at least they both have modes conforming to earlier standards.
-- 
Flash Gordon