Re: So what Standard are we working off?
- From: Ben Pfaff <blp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:25:46 -0700
Joe Wright <joewwright@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Is there a case where a correct C90 program cannot be successfully
compiled by a C99 compiler? Actually this is not a compiler question but
a language one. Is there anything in C90 that C99 must reject or handle
differently?
Yes. Consider the new "inline" and "restrict" keywords, the
dropping of implicit int, and the disallowing of implicit
function declarations.
--
char a[]="\n .CJacehknorstu";int putchar(int);int main(void){unsigned long b[]
={0x67dffdff,0x9aa9aa6a,0xa77ffda9,0x7da6aa6a,0xa67f6aaa,0xaa9aa9f6,0x11f6},*p
=b,i=24;for(;p+=!*p;*p/=4)switch(0[p]&3)case 0:{return 0;for(p--;i--;i--)case+
2:{i++;if(i)break;else default:continue;if(0)case 1:putchar(a[i&15]);break;}}}
.
- References:
- So what Standard are we working off?
- From: Frederick Gotham
- Re: So what Standard are we working off?
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: So what Standard are we working off?
- From: Frederick Gotham
- Re: So what Standard are we working off?
- From: Peter Nilsson
- Re: So what Standard are we working off?
- From: Ben Pfaff
- Re: So what Standard are we working off?
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: So what Standard are we working off?
- From: Joe Wright
- So what Standard are we working off?
- Prev by Date: Re: So what Standard are we working off?
- Next by Date: Re: Order of execution
- Previous by thread: Re: So what Standard are we working off?
- Next by thread: Re: So what Standard are we working off?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|