Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Is this valid C?
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:16:05 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <lnvas4lah6.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <o8858o$g1g$1@dont-email.me> <o8alb0$6pb$1@dont-email.me> <o8an5i$bmv$1@dont-email.me> <ln60k6q31w.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <o8bv3d$dg8$1@dont-email.me> <87shnab3c5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ln37fane0p.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <87wpclaoqs.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o8d5p6$s5l$1@dont-email.me> <4a1d176e-0c60-422e-9eb0-04574b2f32ef@googlegroups.com> <o8ebd6$mis$1@dont-email.me> <e481bb65-b8cd-4020-8925-3e7363ebf373@googlegroups.com> <o8f3s6$8qk$1@dont-email.me> <9e683fb3-c692-4777-8e58-6ab23eee68ff@googlegroups.com> <lnh93on5n4.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <726ddfc8-83af-47db-8a18-08d921816e82@googlegroups.com> <ln4lzomwrg.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <3bee4191-6834-4b99-bf92-d8ca5b8b34e2@googlegroups.com> <lnzihgleff.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <68dc7263-0d48-432b-bc08-a6536fda6382@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f3ac9ced70e0b1a54e50b8960e1b8067"; logging-data="24003"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+woGdj111R3xYwDCG3ovfx"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JoZ8nmbBN/LFaVZ60WGiq2vUuv0= sha1:7Rwi/y0YsZ0ruINHtIcZE+VJARw=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:104300

supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 3:50:23 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Most of the extensions provided by gcc are not defined in that way.  I'm
>> less familiar with extensions provided by other compilers.
>
> The gcc extensions I'm familiar with that don't use reserved
> identifiers go back a long time.  I'm not positive, but I think they
> predate the C89 Standard and the authors of gcc had hoped that the
> Standard would regard programs using such extensions as being well
> formed and not requiring a diagnostic.
>
> I'd be curious to know of gcc extensions that don't use reserved
> identifiers and don't predate C89.  I'm pretty certain that zero-size
> arrays (offering the semantics of what C99 would eventually support
> via Flexible Array Members, but with slightly different syntax) were
> present from the early days, as was the ({ }) syntax for statement
> expressions, // syntax for comments, and the ability to use anonymous
> aggregate members.
>
> What syntactic innovations came later?

I don't know.  The history of gcc is publicly available.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"