Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Abstract Syntax Tree for C programs Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 13:18:55 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <87sgt339na.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <80470a36-78de-417f-bc75-a7966c87b31e@googlegroups.com> <9cbcea67-85a8-4de3-ac01-04922ba5fc74@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="96c016763d4b95fce0489d64fdbdb2d7"; logging-data="30464"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/9B1yfJwLYhOcfNJaqlfuU" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:eDFbpFAd6C3UUplE0VZ5Yi/Cfkw= sha1:T5jXVLBAfIewA4UbB0VP///OZcg= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:144078 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Keith Thompson writes: [...] >>I personally would refer for gcc to be more conforming by default. > > I'd rather not, personally, see that. The vast majority of C and C++ > code that we build wouldn't be compilable in strict conforming mode; > nor do we have any desire to waste the man-decades it would cost to > make it so. That would be easily addressable by using whatever option is needed to enable the desired extensions. >>But it doesn't bother me too much, because it's so easy to ask >>it to be conforming. (And there's a case to be made that gcc's >>default behavior is reasaonable.) > > Indeed. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Will write code for food. void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */