gcc-2.7.2.1

[Matthias Andree]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Stefan Bellon wrote:

> > is not a main stream platform, if Norcroft C drops a warning because
> > it doesn't to basic block analysis to figure that tail call jumps to
> > a function that does not return, I don't want to know about it.
> 
> I wasn't targetting my comment on this particular case. It was meant to
> be rather a general statement not to concentrate on GCC extensions.
> This limits portability.

The GCC extension we're using are only used when GCC is used. 

> > If you'd said Intel CC or Metrowerks Code Warrior or something other
> > of renown, MIPSpro, Sun Workshop, I might have cared.
> 
> Norcroft C is one of the very few compilers that really implements C90
> and C99 (selectable via command line switch) and not just something
> that looks similar (like GCC does). I'd rather care about a compiler
> that actually adheres to the language specification. But I understand
> that viewpoints may differ.

GCC can be switched to "nasty" mode, "-ansi -pedantic" are the magic
words, possibly along with -std=c89 or -std=c99 -- and they do indeed
have something to complain.

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95