You're forgetting something: GNU/Linux distros are built with
thousands of lines of patches to support new/different gcc behavior.
Thousands were added for the 2->3 transition, and thousands more for
3->4. Please don't claim that all upstream programs in all
distributions support gcc 3.4.4 and 4.0.2 without modification, and
thus gcc is the standard by which portability is defined.
Shantonu
On Oct 25, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 06:51:45PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 25, 2005, at 5:40 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
1) a C++ comment
But case 1 is the nasty one, as users think they can put anything
in a comment. A backslash at the end is likely to be an accident,
since just starting the next line with a // is easy enough.
Be interesting to see the results of a grep on a large software
base. Does anyone have ready access to, say a linux distro handy?
Of all the hits I know about, none of them were an accident.
You're forgetting something: GNU/Linux distros are built with gcc,
and everyone is now using 3.x. So there can't be buildable programs
that depend on behavior gcc doesn't support. There can't be any
currently maintained programs for Linux or BSD that do.
Only users that have never used gcc 3.x could be depending on non-gcc
behavior. Apple is free to do whatever, but please don't claim
that you're doing it for "portability" if you encourage your users
to write code that breaks with gcc 3.x shipped by folks other than
Apple.
