On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Dennis Clarke <dclarke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Dennis Clarke <dclarke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It all reminds me a story when I won a bottle of beer from my
>>>> scientific adviser back in 2005. We had a bet: will gcc compile this
>>>> code:
>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>> int main() {
>>>> printf("a");
>>>> int a;
>>>> printf("b");
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> He was so sure that gcc won't allow it that didn't ever tried :) Thus,
>>>> I think gnu extensions by default are not so bad :)
>>>>
>>>> Alexey
>>>
>>> Let's have a look at that. I don't see any issues really. You call
>>> printf() with a literal string, then define some simple integer, then
>>> print another literal string with a call to printf() and finally return
>>> back to the calling process with a status of 0. Very nice.
>>>
> <snip>
>>
>> 334 lines of research for 7 lines of code :)
>>
>> Alexey
>
> Here are 7 more :-)
>
> $ lint -v -Nlevel=4 -Xc99=all sample1.c
>
> variable unused in function
> (9) a in main
>
> function returns value which is always ignored
> printf
>
>
> --
> Dennis Clarke
> dclarke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <- Email related to the open source Solaris
> dclarke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <- Email related to open source for Solaris
>
>
>
What for? If you read my messages carefully you'll understand that I
know it works with gcc perfectly. Actually I've won a bottle of beer
due to that knowledge :)
But try to compile that code with MSVS for instance (or try reading
C89 standard) and you'll see why it was possible that it would NOT
work.
Alexey
