The main reason that intel and other C compilers implement gcc extensions is because there is a lot of software that relies on them, like the linux kernel for instance.
On 4/25/06, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > gcc 4 can be c99 compliant. > > gcc '--std=c99' $* > > but that doesn't mean that they removed the extensions. > > linux is dependent on inline assembly, for example. (i'm not sure why they > think it necessiary.) so a number of their extensions won't go away. in > fact, > other compilers, like tcc, feel compelled to replicate gnu extensions. > > - erik > > On Tue Apr 25 15:02:51 CDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:02:30PM +1000, Andy Newman wrote: > > > I like this quote from the glibc FAQ... > > > > > > 1.2. What compiler do I need to build GNU libc? > > > > > > ... A lot of extensions of GNU CC are used to increase portability > > > ... > > > > I remember a year or two picking up a Linux rag at the train station on the > > way back from somewhere. They were talking about gcc 4 or something in it > > and saying how they were hoping to do away with a lot of GNU extensions by > > stricter adherence to the language standards in the compiler itself; I guess > > that work got buried. Then again, this was a cursory read on the Subway, > > and I'm slightly dyslexic, so maybe read it the opposite way it was meant. > > > > - Dan C. > > >
