From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" Message-ID: <87r8mlhez8.fsf@becket.becket.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <4da3d9af.0203131248.60d6899e@posting.google.com>, <3C914E64.D5D00447@null.net>, <4da3d9af.0203150929.1d3154d2@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: macro fun [Re: [9fans] plan or side effect] Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:33:08 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 68809c02-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 "ozan s. yigit" writes: > according to gcc, it is strictly conforming. GCC does not assert that anything is strictly conforming. You used "-Wall -ansi -pedantic", but the documentation for GCC says: Some users try to use `-pedantic' to check programs for strict ANSI C conformance. They soon find that it does not do quite what they want: it finds some non-ANSI practices, but not all--only those for which ANSI C *requires* a diagnostic. A feature to report any failur to conform to ANSI C might be useful in some instances, but would require considerable additional work and would be quite different from `-pedantic'. Thomas