Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Optimization by programmers Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 06:45:19 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 24 Message-ID: <86tsngrsi8.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <1177fdi$26ea4$1@dont-email.me> <6aa5876f.783937@news.eternal-september.org> <2026Sep12.201446@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <6aa6172e.15711625@news.eternal-september.org> <2026Sep13.162747@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <118h4cj$fi2a$1@dont-email.me> <2026Sep19.082513@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2026Sep21.191719@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <118t35m$j2ih$1@dont-email.me> <2026Sep22.102909@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <118voo5$1ff81$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 13:45:20 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="1855766"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+5Q02k2R0hYoVX7AhuHEGnzXr0A8N8Jqg="; posting-host="e854bcdde9edbfa449147ac38d1c2707" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:jbgO/Q30bdcA5yvbj0eVX6H5uhg= sha1:/Lr+LrYYvJ9JQmX5L1hFJ4GHY0c= sha256:nvz8CHuQ0vmQL/ZfQgyHepxUkqOwRrV5SbN0S+GDbuc= sha1:RlN+1JcD7RyMQFPEI2afn6O/VDA= sha256:XsSQBJaM7/v6EMkNn/p5FHOWHnpjjsuE99SElErGM/U= Xref: csiph.com comp.arch:118146 Thomas Koenig writes: [...] > AFAIK, it has been argued that > > PRINT *,42 > END > > is a conforming C program because the gfortran command is a > conforming C implementation (the driver also compiles C). How a compiler is invoked can affect whether it is (part of) a conforming C implmentation. For example gcc -x c -std=c99 -pedantic ... asks gcc to be a conforming C compiler; but if instead the invocation is gcc -x c++ ... then how gcc behaves is not consistent with being a conforming C compiler.