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

[James Kanze]

On Jul 16, 5:06 am, Erik de Castro Lopo <[e-mail]:

GeekBoy wrote:

Then get the newest one. Visual Studio 2005, most compliant and stable
yet.

Yes, that compiler is AFAIK ISO C 1990 compliant, but is not ISO C99
compliant, even 8 years after the standard was ratified.

As far as I know, Microsoft doesn't pretend to continue
supporting C, only C++. What C support is present in the
current versions is only for backwards compatibility with
previous versions.

All of which is irrelevant here. The initial example involved
C90 preprocessor, which was part of C++ long before the C++
standard was adopted, so even VC++ 6.0 should support it.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[James Kanze]

On Jul 15, 6:41 am, Erik de Castro Lopo <[e-mail]:

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?

Are these functions part of ISO 9899:1990?

VC++ 6.0 dates from something like 1997, and so predates the C99
standard considerably. As far as I know, Microsoft has also
dropped support for C, except legacy support for backwards
compatibility; the newer compilers make great strides with
regards to C++, but the C compiler is pretty much unchanged (I
think).

And some one has gone and cross-posted to clc and clc++ again,
so if we don't watch out, we're going to get a lot of people
talking at cross-purposes.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[santosh]

James Kanze wrote:

On Jul 16, 5:06 am, Erik de Castro Lopo <[e-mail]:

GeekBoy wrote:

Then get the newest one. Visual Studio 2005, most compliant and stable
yet.

Yes, that compiler is AFAIK ISO C 1990 compliant, but is not ISO C99
compliant, even 8 years after the standard was ratified.

As far as I know, Microsoft doesn't pretend to continue
supporting C, only C++. What C support is present in the
current versions is only for backwards compatibility with
previous versions.

<OT>

They do support the C compiler. They have to, since large parts of the
Windows kernel are in C, and they compile their code with their
compiler.

They just deemed C99 unworthy of efforts for compliance.

</OT>

[Richard Heathfield]

James Kanze said:

<snip>

As far as I know, Microsoft has also
dropped support for C, except legacy support for backwards
compatibility;

That seems fair to me; after all, I've dropped support for Microsoft. If
I need (or want) to write C programs for Windows, I use Visual C 6,
which (if you don't count shovelware in the backs of books) is the last
Microsoft C implementation I shall ever buy.

<snip>

And some one has gone and cross-posted to clc and clc++ again,
so if we don't watch out, we're going to get a lot of people
talking at cross-purposes.

Welcome to Usenet! :-)

--
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]

Richard Heathfield wrote:
:: GeekBoy said:
::: "Ark Khasin" <ak*****@macroe xpressions.comw rote...
:::: GeekBoy wrote:
::::: "Ark Khasin" <ak*****@macroe xpressions.com> ...
::::::
:::::: Any suggestions?
:::::
::::: Yeah, buy a compiler that is ANSI/ISO compliant
:::::
:::: Easier said than done. Many people are bound to MS tools. I
:::: guess I was asking for help with a workaround within MS if known.
:::
::: Then get the newest one. Visual Studio 2005, most compliant and
::: stable yet.
::
:: Easier said than done. Not everyone gets to choose their tool
:: chain. Sometimes those decisions are made by other people - e.g.
:: bosses - and the choices they make are not always for purely
:: technical reasons.
::

Another option is to get a newer, more compliant, and stable boss.
Bo Persson

[Lionel B]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:44:45 +0200, Bo Persson wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
:: GeekBoy said:
::: "Ark Khasin" <ak*****@macroe xpressions.comw rote... :::: GeekBoy
wrote:
::::: "Ark Khasin" <ak*****@macroe xpressions.com> ... ::::::
:::::: Any suggestions?
:::::
::::: Yeah, buy a compiler that is ANSI/ISO compliant :::::
:::: Easier said than done. Many people are bound to MS tools. I ::::
guess I was asking for help with a workaround within MS if known. :::
::: Then get the newest one. Visual Studio 2005, most compliant and :::
stable yet.
::
:: Easier said than done. Not everyone gets to choose their tool ::
chain. Sometimes those decisions are made by other people - e.g. ::
bosses - and the choices they make are not always for purely ::
technical reasons.
::
Another option is to get a newer, more compliant, and stable boss.

:-) Know what you mean... mine is still in beta and rather buggy.

--
Lionel B

[Victor Bazarov]

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

GeekBoy wrote:

>Then get the newest one. Visual Studio 2005, most compliant and
stable yet.

Yes, that compiler is AFAIK ISO C 1990 compliant, but is not ISO C99
compliant, even 8 years after the standard was ratified.

So? Why should we/he care about C?

[user923005]

On Jul 15, 8:06 pm, Erik de Castro Lopo <[e-mail]:

GeekBoy wrote:

Then get the newest one. Visual Studio 2005, most compliant and stable
yet.

Yes, that compiler is AFAIK ISO C 1990 compliant, but is not ISO C99
compliant, even 8 years after the standard was ratified.

I have never seen a compiler that actually conforms the the ISO C99
standard, though many of them implement subsets of it.

I would be interested to know if a fully validated C99 compiler exists
(one that correctly implements each and every language feature).

[Richard Heathfield]

user923005 said:

<snip>

I would be interested to know if a fully validated C99 compiler exists
(one that correctly implements each and every language feature).

http://www.peren.com/pages/cvsa_isocvpl.htm may be of interest to you. I
don't know how thorough their test suite is, of course.

--
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

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

user923005 wrote:

On Jul 15, 8:06 pm, Erik de Castro Lopo <[e-mail]:

>GeekBoy wrote:

Then get the newest one. Visual Studio 2005, most compliant and stable
yet.

Yes, that compiler is AFAIK ISO C 1990 compliant, but is not ISO C99
compliant, even 8 years after the standard was ratified.

I have never seen a compiler that actually conforms the the ISO C99
standard, though many of them implement subsets of it.

The microsoft compiler implements close to zero of C99.

The GNU compiler implements a very large part of C99 and is available
for a bunch of operating systems and CPUs.

Erik
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Web (hosting), security and high-performance computing are the
three areas where Linux has more strength." --
Bob Muglia, senior VP in charge of Windows Server development.
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+target...3-5735805.html