From: Jack Klein <jackklein AT spamcop DOT net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Question about ISO C99 and GCC
Message-ID: <bdgnnuk02ksse6kvt2bhfjmla5nkank36l@4ax.com>
References: <3d71a27d DOT 23705885 AT news DOT nzwide DOT ihug DOT co DOT nz> <3d794cbc DOT 170442372 AT news DOT concentric DOT net> <200209070110 DOT g871AiW02735 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3d7970de DOT 179693669 AT news DOT concentric DOT net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 47
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 21:32:25 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.84.19.243
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT worldnet DOT att DOT net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1031520745 12.84.19.243 (Sun, 08 Sep 2002 21:32:25 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 21:32:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On 07 Sep 2002 03:24:35 GMT, haleyjd AT NOSPAM DOT hotmail DOT com (James Haley)
wrote in comp.os.msdos.djgpp:

> So, now that I better understand the source of this requirement, I
> have one question.  Is it the position of the GCC guys that all code
> to be compiled under GCC should be ISO C99 compliant? I was totally
> unaware of the addition of the new requirement in this standard, as
> I'm sure you ascertained.
> 
> If this is the case, then it'll be much easier for me now to make sure
> all my source is ISO C99 compliant rather than being revisionist and
> fixing one issue at a time when it arises :->
> 
> As soon as I get the chance I will upgrade to the newest version of
> DJGPP (mine is a bit outdated) and see what I can do.
> 
> Again, sorry about my bad attitude earlier.  It was very
> unprofessional of me.

Actually this is not a new requirement at all.  It was also in the
original 1989 ANSI standard, and the first combined ANSI/ISO
International Standard (1990).  In fact, it had the same number then,
numbered paragraph 2 of section 5.1.1.2.  And in fact there are
compilers that don't flag this as an error, but actually zoom off into
never-never land when they run into this behavior, still.

I can't speak for the GCC developers, because I am not one of them,
but I would suggest not being too hard on them.  There are a huge
number of pre-standard sloppy coding practices that used to slip
through GCC, and many other compilers as well.  They are working very
hard to add support for both the C99 update and the first ever C++
standard.

If they happen to catch a sloppy coding practice that has actually
been illegal for more than 12 years, be happy that it is one so
trivially easy to fix.  A simple script to add a final newline to
files missing one is trivial, and the change will not prevent the
fixed files from being used with the compilers that accepted the
original version.

-- 
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c++/faq