Re: A simple parser
- From: Richard <rgrdev@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:44:11 +0200
Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Richard said:
Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:<snip>
Look, if there were some compelling reason for using C99 features, okay,
fair enough: "sorry for leaving Richard H (and most of the conforming
world) behind but these C99 features are just too useful to ignore, and
if that means a portability loss, so be it". But that does not appear to
be the case here.
This is not about C90 vs C99. This is about "works everywhere" vs "works
almost nowhere, unless you use a non-conforming compiler".
But since gcc supports a subset, and a useful subset, its hardly "almost
nowhere" is it?
When I invoke my gcc implementation in conforming mode, it (correctly)
diagnoses single-line comments, mixed code/decls, etc. If you are asking me
to turn off conforming mode, the answer is "No".
Which conforming mode?
I have the following command line options: Pretty strict it is too.
CFLAGS=-std=c99 -pedantic-errors -Wall -pthread -g $(DEBUGFLAGS)
Nothing particularly evil. OK, we know our target OS.
These features don't suddenly make it weaker C code - this is
comp.lang.c and C99 is the C language too. Like it, or more probably in
your case, not.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A simple parser
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: A simple parser
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: A simple parser
- References:
- A simple parser
- From: jacob navia
- Re: A simple parser
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: A simple parser
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: A simple parser
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: A simple parser
- From: Ian Collins
- Re: A simple parser
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: A simple parser
- From: Richard
- Re: A simple parser
- From: Richard Heathfield
- A simple parser
- Prev by Date: Re: A simple parser
- Next by Date: Re: A simple parser
- Previous by thread: Re: A simple parser
- Next by thread: Re: A simple parser
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|