Is it just me or just Microsoft?

[Ark Khasin]

Due to a peculiar need (code instrumentation ) I came across unexpected
behavior of Visual Studio 6.0 and 2005 (doing the same thing):

#include <stdio.h>
#define CAT1(a,b) a ## b
#define CAT(a,b) CAT1(a,b)
#define MYNUM(n) CAT(n,__LINE__)
const int x = MYNUM(35); //OK
int z=MYNUM(78); //OK
int main(int argc)
{
static int y=MYNUM(21); //error!
//6.0: error C2064: term doesn't evaluate to a function
//2005 adds: taking 26451848 arguments.

printf("%d %d\n", x, y );
return 0;
}

Doesn't matter if I compile as C or as C++ (if I am not mistaken, the
preprocessor is the same).
No problem with another compiler (IAR for ARM)...
[Microsoft claims strict standard compliance in the C++ department]

Any suggestions?

Thank you,
Ark

[Default User]

Neelesh Bodas wrote:

On Jul 15, 8:37 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <[e-mail] wrote:

* Alf P. Steinbach:

* Ark Khasin:

>int main(int argc)
>{
> static int y=MYNUM(21); //error!

Just another suggestion: your "main" signature is incorrect.

I guess the standard expects the implementations to support the two
"standard" signatures, but it also says that other signatures are
allowed as far as return type is int:

So? That just makes it non-standard extension. It is incorrect within
the scope of either of these newsgroups.

Brian

[Martin Ambuhl]

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

Dave Vandervies wrote:

>MSVC6 complies to ISO 9899:1990 as well as any other compiler does when
it's invoked properly.

Really? Do they have:

- New C99 math functions like lrint, lrintf, round etc ?
- A C99 compliant snprintf function?
- C99 variadic macros?

Only the truly perverse think that "complies to ISO 9899:1990" implies
the presence on C99 additions. In no way does their absence invalidate
Mr. Vandervies's claim.

[Richard Heathfield]

Neelesh Bodas said:

<snip>

<quote>
3.6.1.2:
(main) function shall not be overloaded.

No, there is no section 3.6.1.2 in the Standard. There is a section
3.6(1), however, which says: "byte - addressable unit of data storage
large enough to hold any member of the basic character set of the
execution environment". I'm not sure how this is relevant to the fact
that your main declarator is broken.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Bo Persson]

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
:: Dave Vandervies wrote:
::
::: MSVC6 complies to ISO 9899:1990 as well as any other compiler
::: does when it's invoked properly.
::
:: Really? Do they have:
::
:: - New C99 math functions like lrint, lrintf, round etc ?
:: - A C99 compliant snprintf function?
:: - C99 variadic macros?

That wasn't available in 1990, was it?
Bo Persson

[Bo Persson]

Dave Vandervies wrote:
:: In article <46************ ***********@roa drunner.com>,
:: GeekBoy <ge**@com.comwr ote:
:::
::: "Ark Khasin" <ak*****@macroe xpressions.comw rote in message
::: news:Pbfmi.4059 $7R4.1870@trndn y09...
:::: Due to a peculiar need (code instrumentation ) I came across
:::: unexpected behavior of Visual Studio 6.0 and 2005 (doing the
:::: same thing):
::
:: [...]
::
:::: Any suggestions?
:::
::: Yeah, buy a compiler that is ANSI/ISO compliant
::
:: MSVC6 complies to ISO 9899:1990 as well as any other compiler does
:: when it's invoked properly. Its C++ compiler pre-dates the last
:: two versions
:: of the C++ standard and I don't have any experience with newer
:: versions, but I would be surprised if they don't at least closely
:: approximate compliance.

There are only two versions of the C++ standard, 1998 and 2003.

VC6 predates both of them, which you will notice if you try some
templated code, for example.
Bo Persson

[Rolf Magnus]

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

Dave Vandervies wrote:

>MSVC6 complies to ISO 9899:1990 as well as any other compiler does when
it's invoked properly.

Really? Do they have:

- New C99 math functions like lrint, lrintf, round etc ?
- A C99 compliant snprintf function?
- C99 variadic macros?

What does this all have to do with C90 compliance?

[Rolf Magnus]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Neelesh Bodas said:

<snip>

><quote>
3.6.1.2:
(main) function shall not be overloaded.

No, there is no section 3.6.1.2 in the Standard. There is a section
3.6(1), however, which says: "byte - addressable unit of data storage
large enough to hold any member of the basic character set of the
execution environment". I'm not sure how this is relevant to the fact
that your main declarator is broken.

It seems that both of you didn't notice that this thread goes to both
comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++. It's likely that you are talking about
different standards.

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Erik_Wikstr=F6m?=]

On 2007-07-15 06:41, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

Dave Vandervies wrote:

>MSVC6 complies to ISO 9899:1990 as well as any other compiler does when
it's invoked properly.

Really? Do they have:

- New C99 math functions like lrint, lrintf, round etc ?
- A C99 compliant snprintf function?
- C99 variadic macros?

Of course not, he said ISO 9899:1990, that's 9 years to early.

--
Erik Wikström

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Erik_Wikstr=F6m?=]

On 2007-07-15 10:59, Bo Persson wrote:

Dave Vandervies wrote:
:: In article <46************ ***********@roa drunner.com>,
:: GeekBoy <ge**@com.comwr ote:
:::
::: "Ark Khasin" <ak*****@macroe xpressions.comw rote in message
::: news:Pbfmi.4059 $7R4.1870@trndn y09...
:::: Due to a peculiar need (code instrumentation ) I came across
:::: unexpected behavior of Visual Studio 6.0 and 2005 (doing the
:::: same thing):
::
:: [...]
::
:::: Any suggestions?
:::
::: Yeah, buy a compiler that is ANSI/ISO compliant
::
:: MSVC6 complies to ISO 9899:1990 as well as any other compiler does
:: when it's invoked properly. Its C++ compiler pre-dates the last
:: two versions
:: of the C++ standard and I don't have any experience with newer
:: versions, but I would be surprised if they don't at least closely
:: approximate compliance.

There are only two versions of the C++ standard, 1998 and 2003.

And a C standard released 1990.

--
Erik Wikström

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Erik_Wikstr=F6m?=]

On 2007-07-15 03:59, Ark Khasin wrote:

Due to a peculiar need (code instrumentation ) I came across unexpected
behavior of Visual Studio 6.0 and 2005 (doing the same thing):

#include <stdio.h>
#define CAT1(a,b) a ## b
#define CAT(a,b) CAT1(a,b)
#define MYNUM(n) CAT(n,__LINE__)
const int x = MYNUM(35); //OK
int z=MYNUM(78); //OK
int main(int argc)
{
static int y=MYNUM(21); //error!
//6.0: error C2064: term doesn't evaluate to a function
//2005 adds: taking 26451848 arguments.

printf("%d %d\n", x, y );
return 0;
}

Doesn't matter if I compile as C or as C++ (if I am not mistaken, the
preprocessor is the same).
No problem with another compiler (IAR for ARM)...
[Microsoft claims strict standard compliance in the C++ department]

Any suggestions?

It works fine for me in VS2005, I suggest you check your compiler options.

--
Erik Wikström