Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!killer!chasm
From: chasm@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Charles Marslett)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: portability
Summary: They do a pretty good job (if you stay away from -o)
Message-ID: <6826@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: 18 Jan 89 07:23:34 GMT
References: <1354@tank.uchicago.edu> <3377@arcturus> <9414@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 22

In article <9414@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> Some of us would argue that the ABSENCE of these extensions is more
> useful to the portable-C programmer than their presence!  I have had
> code in the past that used several of these as variable names, etc.
> Unless the compiler manages to allow them as user identifiers outside
> the context of type declarations, they are bound to get in the way.
> (I don't know whether or not MicroSoft's compiler is that clever.)

It is.  They have more that a reasonable number of command line
switches to disable/enable every detail conceivable (and a few I cannot
conceive of uses for, except in a Windows environment ;^).

Microsoft C is rather stringently ANSI-ish if you disable the extensions
-- the only thing they seem to leave on when you turn it off (sometimes)
is function prototypes -- they fix up calling sequences after telling
you they won't.  If only they got all the optimizations as perfect . . .

===========================================================================
Charles Marslett
STB Systems, Inc.  <== Apply all standard disclaimers
Wordmark Systems   <== No disclaimers required -- that's just me
chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us