Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> writes:
Wrong. I wouldn't bother replying to you again in this thread, but I
feel that as a gcc maintainer I should confirm that Eli S. is right
here; and nobody else I know agrees with your definition of extension
as "every non-standard aspect of the compiler's behaviour, whether
intentional or accidental". That's just silly.
GCC's support for implicit int is clearly intentional.
I never claimed that accidental GNU CC behavior was part of GNU C.
You might not have explicitly stated that, but you have made that
argument in this thread.
You have asserted that the compiler's behavior, and not its
documentation, determines what should be consider a language extension.
That assertion when taken to its natural conclusion show support for the
idea that "accidental GNU CC behavior" should be considered a language
extension, and by becoming a language extension it would be part of GNU C.
If the behavior, and not the documentation, determines what is and is
not an extension unless it's "accidental behavior", then how is anyone
to know what is or is not a GNU C extension?
