Re: good c compiler
- From: jameskuyper@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Keith Thompson wrote:
....
I'll just address one of your other points. Name one instance in
which Richard Heathfield has complained about a "perfectly C99
compatible extension" provided by lcc-win.
I predict that you will attempt to do so, that it will turn out either
that Richard wasn't complaining about the extension or that the
extension is not "perfectly C99 compatible", and that you will refuse
to acknowledge this. As always, I hope you prove me wrong.
I make a different prediction: jacob will describe a C99 feature that
is always supported by lcc-win, regardless of command line options,
and never produces diagnostics, even under circumstances where C89
would mandate them. jacob will quote a message where Richard
Heathfield points out that this means that lcc-win has no mode which
fully conforms to C89. jacob considers these features to be legal
"extensions" to C89; as a result, he sees no point in producing the
diagnostics that are mandatory if he wishes to claim conformance to
C89.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: good c compiler
- From: Mark McIntyre
- Re: good c compiler
- References:
- good c compiler
- From: bernard
- Re: good c compiler
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: good c compiler
- From: s0suk3
- Re: good c compiler
- From: jacob navia
- Re: good c compiler
- From: James Kuyper
- Re: good c compiler
- From: jacob navia
- Re: good c compiler
- From: James Kuyper
- Re: good c compiler
- From: jacob navia
- Re: good c compiler
- From: Bart van Ingen Schenau
- Re: good c compiler
- From: jacob navia
- Re: good c compiler
- From: Keith Thompson
- good c compiler
- Prev by Date: Re: question
- Next by Date: Re: Comment Style
- Previous by thread: Re: good c compiler
- Next by thread: Re: good c compiler
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading