Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!bloom-beacon!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!jfc
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <1991May2.212852.22570@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 2 May 91 21:28:52 GMT
References: <16023@smoke.brl.mil> <1991May2.033545.15051@athena.mit.edu> <1991May2.041911.14489@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 15

In article <1991May2.041911.14489@zoo.toronto.edu>
	henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>However, why do you assume that the compiler
>must complain *or* generate 64-bit code?  ANSI C does not prevent it from
>doing both.  The only thing the standard requires is that violations of its
>constraints must draw at least one complaint.

I know that diagnostics are not required to be fatal errors, but I would be
annoyed to get a warning every time I compiled code that used a nonstandard
extension.  I think the gcc solution is a good one: support ANSI features by
default, but only print warnings for use of extensions when the user asks
for them.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)