home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.cern.ch!danpop
- From: danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Differences: Turbo vs. Microsoft
- Date: 17 Apr 96 11:58:01 GMT
- Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics
- Message-ID: <danpop.829742281@news.cern.ch>
- References: <1996Apr15.172003.140044@forest> <16APR199607502310@erich.triumf.ca> <danpop.829677541@news.cern.ch> <4l18i5$9sj@news.interpath.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ues5.cern.ch
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #7 (NOV)
-
- In <4l18i5$9sj@news.interpath.net> softbase@mercury.interpath.com (Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems) writes:
-
- >Dan Pop (danpop@mail.cern.ch) wrote:
- >: And to really answer the question of the original poster: there is no
- >: difference between the C that's in Turbo C and the C that's in
- >: Microsoft C.
- >
- >None whatsoever? They both implement ANSI C identically?
-
- Yes, as far as I can tell and the ANSI standard is concerned (modulo
- possible bugs).
-
- >I've never pored over the ANSI C implementation documentation for
- >both compilers side by side, but there's bound to be some differences.
- >Normal code shouldn't run into them.
-
- And code invoking undefined behaviour is of no interest as far as the
- ANSI C language is concerned. In other words, i=i++ might produce
- different results on the two compilers, but this doesn't invalidate
- my point: any result is correct for this expression, according to the
- definition of the C language (if anybody has any objections about this
- statement, reading the FAQ before posting them will save him from getting
- badly burned).
-
- Dan
- --
- Dan Pop
- CERN, CN Division
- Email: danpop@mail.cern.ch
- Mail: CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
-