Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 15:45:37 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <lnwpv2w8vi.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <mtaqif$50r$1@speranza.aioe.org> <d5sbmhF884kU16@mid.individual.net> <mtb0eh$ulf$1@dont-email.me> <mtb3ug$8ul$1@dont-email.me> <6dd2d227-fd27-4616-b1a5-049c7e3c37cb@googlegroups.com> <ln37yel6od.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <77230d0e-fb57-4141-9aaa-db3efdda1ccb@googlegroups.com> <lnlhc6jm3s.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <dc8a1882-32f4-46bb-abd6-55ce770f0971@googlegroups.com> <lnr3lyi0r7.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <a291ffcb-9e8a-414e-93cb-6cbfcf3d9509@googlegroups.com> <ln1tdyhy99.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <8c22fa39-8e38-4c63-804a-b99b198bb1b3@googlegroups.com> <lnsi6egh15.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <uxpKx.143190$zz6.1434@fx04.iad> <mte932$7o4$1@dont-email.me> <55ffca40.4479046@news.xs4all.nl> <133bd5bf-5eb3-4161-997b-65407fd255b1@googlegroups.com> <lnh9m910hd.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <56112dc9.514062@news.xs4all.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="28070"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DCG/2ETCl0y/BLneF+oTH"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XD2ALPSe6HHCLnVOLhDE8P98FIc= sha1:kx7Ua8OyU0vx9LktBJY9OYzmFNA=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:71882

raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
[...]
>> If I recall correctly, lcc-win has a "-ansic" (sp?) option intended to
>> enable C99 conformance.  That suggests it's not conforming by default.
>> (This is an observation, not a criticism.)
>
> Precisely; I don't mean to say lcc-win is deficient because it needs an
> option to be ISO-conformant. I'm merely pointing out that it's _not
> better_ than M$VS in this regard, and therefore not useful _instead_ of
> VS for this purpose alone. I don't mean to imply that it's _worse_. Nor
> that it's better _or_ worse in other regards.

Except that lcc-win with appropriate options attempts to conform to C99
(I haven't heard about any C11 support) whereas MSVS only attempts to
conform to C90.

[...]

-- 
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"