Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pilchuck!dataio!fnx!nazgul!bright
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: How ANSI is TC++?
Message-ID: <131@nazgul.UUCP>
Date: 31 Oct 90 10:53:11 GMT
References: <116@nazgul.UUCP> <5940044@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com> <1990Oct26.162147.8767@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle
Lines: 14

In article <1990Oct26.162147.8767@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
<In article <5940044@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com> jamiller@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Jim Miller) writes:
<>In the area of ANSI compliance in other reviews (I can't remember where)
<>TC++ came out ahead of a number of other C compilers including (*IF* I
<>remember correctly) MS-C 6.0.
<Microsoft is not ANSI compliant. They lack a few of the obscure
<things like locale support. I believe that to date there are no
<ANSI compliant compilers. Microsoft is extremely close.

A lot of people talk about "100% ANSI C compliance". This is impossible,
as it implies there are *no* bugs in the compiler. We all know this
is unattainable (by any known technology!). The best one can say is
it passes so-and-so's test suite, or was validated by such-and-such
outfit.