portability

[Charles Marslett]

In article <9414 at smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn at 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 at killer.dallas.tx.us