delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f |
From: | Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: DJGPP v2.05: some thoughts |
Date: | Sat, 6 Jun 2015 07:41:15 +0000 (UTC) |
Organization: | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
Lines: | 23 |
Message-ID: | <mku86p$vaq$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
References: | <55673F0B DOT 1090103 AT iki DOT fi> <83twuwwshg DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <55675040 DOT 9030008 AT iki DOT fi> <556F6E49 DOT 8010006 AT gmx DOT de> <556FCCDF DOT 7080005 AT iki DOT fi> <83bngvr0ef DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <557078B1 DOT 9040004 AT iki DOT fi> <201506041613 DOT t54GDT8m014488 AT delorie DOT com> <5570B1F7 DOT 1070509 AT iki DOT fi> <83pp5aprqw DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <mks4nl$1o8$1 AT speranza DOT aioe DOT org> <834mmmp7f0 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <cte6sgFak6U1 AT mid DOT dfncis DOT de> <83y4jynfkj DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | WLZdEp4S2PR09rkVF8ILdg.user.speranza.aioe.org |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Complaints-To: | abuse AT aioe DOT org |
User-Agent: | tin/2.1.1-20120623 ("Mulindry") (UNIX) (Linux/3.2.0-4-amd64 (x86_64)) |
X-Notice: | Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 |
Bytes: | 2051 |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
"Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote: > > From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker AT t-online DOT de> > > Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 20:08:19 +0200 > > I.e. the standard reserves other E* macros for itself, to be used in > > future versions. AIUI, that doesn't actually reserve them for use by > > DJGPP, though. > Indeed, it doesn't, IMO. Eeerm... I'm confused, DJGPP _is_ the implementation (of C) IMO. If DJGPP is not the implemtation, what would you call it? > I think we should stick to the old practice of not defining > non-standard values when strict standard compliance was requested by > the compiler switches. There's obviously nothing wrong _not_ defining them if we want to. We could because C99 lets us, but we don't have to. -- MartinS
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |