B
Bart Oldeman
Hi,
Open Watcom C defines NO_EXT_KEYS if you use it with -za ("disable
extensions (i.e., accept only ISO/ANSI C)"), but isn't this a
contradiction in itself; it's not in the implementation defined namespace
after all.
This code for example
int foo(void)
{
return NO_EXT_KEYS;
}
compiles happily. As far as I understand though this macro has been there
for a long time for MS compatibility so it can't be that easily removed.
My question is: do recent MS C compilers or other common compilers still
define this macro too? I just know that GCC doesn't -- it defines
__STRICT_ANSI__ instead.
We are considering to remove its definition from Open Watcom for the new
-za99 switch, well C99 support is far from complete but a switch similar
to GCC's -std=c99 is still needed.
Bart
Open Watcom C defines NO_EXT_KEYS if you use it with -za ("disable
extensions (i.e., accept only ISO/ANSI C)"), but isn't this a
contradiction in itself; it's not in the implementation defined namespace
after all.
This code for example
int foo(void)
{
return NO_EXT_KEYS;
}
compiles happily. As far as I understand though this macro has been there
for a long time for MS compatibility so it can't be that easily removed.
My question is: do recent MS C compilers or other common compilers still
define this macro too? I just know that GCC doesn't -- it defines
__STRICT_ANSI__ instead.
We are considering to remove its definition from Open Watcom for the new
-za99 switch, well C99 support is far from complete but a switch similar
to GCC's -std=c99 is still needed.
Bart