From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "AMSRL-CI-CN" <gwyn@arl.army.mil>
Message-ID: <Gt199z.8z6@arl.army.mil>
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 10:38:42 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 687074c6-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

"ozan s. yigit" <oz@cs.yorku.ca> wrote in message
news:4da3d9af.0203150929.1d3154d2@posting.google.com...
>> according to gcc, [t.c] is strictly conforming. it compiles
> perfectly.

That's not at all the same thing.

> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <string.h>
> extern char *strcpy(char *, const char *);

The C standard is very explicit about not doing this;
see subclauses 7.1.3 and 7.1.4.
What you have is not a strictly conforming program,
so its lack of success with a particular C implementation
does not indicate that the C implementation is not conforming.

It might be surprising that programmers need to be more careful,
but there are many aspects of C like that.