Ross Ridge wrote: > GCC doesn't use (A), (B) or (C). GCC doesn't conform to C99 and > any implementation of "c99" that uses GCC would presumably also be > non-conforming. Robert Dewar wrote: > What exactly is the observable non-conformance?
Ross Ridge wrote: > GCC doesn't claim C99 conformance. The following URL lists a number of > different areas in which GCC is known not to conform: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > How does the fact that gcc does not currently conform to C99 imply > that gcc doesn't use (A), (B), or (C)? It doesn't, the implication is the other way around. But if you're asking for "observable non-conformance" then there are lot more obvious ways to observe it than by showing that GCC doesn't use (A), (B) or (C). > In any case, the general goal is to conform to C99, so it still makes > sense to discuss this. Maybe, but there's no implementation of (A) or (C) in GCC that would make requiring (B) a burden. So I think Paul Eggert's question has been answered. Ross Ridge
