Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #9216

Re: lcc-win

Show all headers | View raw

On 08/11/2011 10:51 AM, tom st denis wrote:
> On Aug 11, 9:14 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>> The lcc-win compiler is a C99 compiler for windows systems. It can be
> ...
>> It is an experimental system, with several extensions to the C language
> 
> These statements are incompatible.

Not true; a fully conforming implementation of C99 can provide it's own
definition of the behavior of a program whenever it contains specific
features that render it's behavior undefined by the C99 standard.
Extensions implemented by making use of that fact do not interfere with
conformance. Example: extensions that occur only when your code uses a
identifier that is, in it's context, reserved to the implementation,
such as __aligned. A #pragma statement (or _Pragma() expression) is
another mechanism that a fully conforming implementation of C can use to
turn an extension on or off.

These same mechanisms could also be used to trigger extensions which
give the user control over behavior that is unspecified by the C
standard, without rendering the implementation non-conforming.

Somewhat more obtrusive, but still fully conforming, would be an
extension that gives meaning to code that constitutes a syntax error or
a constraint violation. A fully conforming implementation of C can
accept such code, so long as it generates a corresponding diagnostic,
such as "Congratulations on using our forma-link extension! We hope you
enjoy using it.".

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

lcc-win jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-11 15:14 +0200
  Re: lcc-win tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-11 07:51 -0700
    Re: lcc-win James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-11 11:23 -0400
      Re: lcc-win tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-11 08:35 -0700
        Re: lcc-win James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-11 12:28 -0400
          Re: lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-11 11:46 -0700
            Re: lcc-win tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-12 10:20 -0700
              Re: lcc-win James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 14:00 -0400
                Re: lcc-win tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-12 11:23 -0700
                Re: lcc-win blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-08-12 11:36 -0700
                Re: lcc-win tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-12 11:42 -0700
                Re: lcc-win Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-08-12 11:52 -0700
                Re: lcc-win jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-12 20:37 +0200
    Re: lcc-win jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-11 19:45 +0200
      Re: lcc-win Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-08-11 20:12 +0000
        Re: lcc-win jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-11 22:43 +0200
        Re: lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-11 13:43 -0700
        Re: lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-12 08:50 +1200
    Re: lcc-win gordonb.04sy5@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-08-12 19:54 -0500

csiph-web