From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:54:01 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] impressive
Message-ID: <20060426005401.GG27116@submarine>
References: <cc39734bed5352393b40f65a344378c2@quanstro.net>
	<bd0c0a18c16c2b6fcf07ea7937c582da@collyer.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <bd0c0a18c16c2b6fcf07ea7937c582da@collyer.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4618a694-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 05:48:00PM -0700, geoff@collyer.net wrote:
> >From memory and a quick scan of gcc(1) since I don't have time to read
> the entire manual ``page'' now, `gcc -ansi -pedantic' should compile
> exactly 1990 ISO C and `gcc --std=c99 -pedantic' should compile
> exactly 1999 ISO C. Using -pedantic-errors instead of -pedantic will
> produce fatal errors rather than warnings for using extensions.

  gcc *can not* claim full ISO C99 compatibility for the variety of reasons,
  but the biggest one being -- glibc is not c99 complaint.

Thanks,
Roman.