Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless

Bob Montante <bobmon@sandshark.cs.indiana.edu>
Tue, 12 May 1992 16:43:24 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Why some PC C compilers are useless sjg@zen.void.oz.au (1992-05-07)
Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless cliffc@rice.edu (1992-05-08)
Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless sjg@melb.bull.oz.au (1992-05-11)
Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless Zoid@mindlink.bc.ca (1992-05-11)
Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless bobmon@sandshark.cs.indiana.edu (Bob Montante) (1992-05-12)
Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless sjg@melb.bull.oz.au (1992-05-13)
Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless sdm7g@aemsun.med.Virginia.EDU (1992-05-14)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: Bob Montante <bobmon@sandshark.cs.indiana.edu>
Keywords: C, MSDOS
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 92-05-042 92-05-046
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 16:43:24 GMT

| >DOS programs work correctly with text files that don't contain returns.
| >There is no technical reason why a compiler should care. -John]


If I recall correctly, the Turbo C compiler accepts programs with Unix-
style newlines --- BUT the Turbo C preprocessor chokes on them!


I can imagine an argument for this --- end-of-line is usually not
syntactically significant in C, but it is significant in "#define FOO ..."
type things that the preprocessor handles. But it's really aggravating,
nonetheless.
[Sounds like a bug to me. Sheesh. -John]
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.