From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32143 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2010 19:50:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 32131 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Feb 2010 19:50:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_HEADERS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.digium.com (HELO mail.digium.com) (216.207.245.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:50:05 +0000 Received: from zimbra.digium.internal ([10.24.55.203] helo=zimbra.hsv.digium.com) by mail.digium.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NfIZY-0001hc-1l for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:50:04 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03035D8024 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:50:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from zimbra.hsv.digium.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.hsv.digium.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yj-4ORpD3iB0 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:50:03 -0600 (CST) Received: from [10.24.250.46] (unknown [10.24.250.46]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6183D8023 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:50:03 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4B730DEB.9040803@digium.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:59:00 -0000 From: "Kevin P. Fleming" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Why is gcc going to default to "GNU dialect of ISO C99?" References: <4B72E287.2010207@onetel.net> <4B72E628.4000904@redhat.com> <4B72EC1D.8060706@onetel.net> <4B72FD26.2040004@onetel.net> In-Reply-To: <4B72FD26.2040004@onetel.net> OpenPGP: id=05FB8DB2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-02/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2 Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > I can't see how hackers can find it too hard to add an option, such as > -allow-GNU-extensions, so they, and anyone reading the code, are well > aware they are not writing C code, but some non-portable variant of it. As it turns out, even many of GCC's extensions that are not part of C99 are now supported by other compilers because, as has been posted before, they are so darn useful. That means that using them does not necessarily make the code 'non portable', although it's not as portable as pure C99 would be. -- Kevin P. Fleming Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA skype: kpfleming | jabber: kpfleming@digium.com Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org