This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Darwin vs. libstdc++
Stan Shebs wrote:-
> Really? I don't see anything in my C89 or C99 specs that suggests
> that isalnum and friends don't need function definitions. For one
> thing, you can't take the address of a macro, so the standard would
> have to say explicitly that the address of isalnum is undefined.
You could have both. Anything with a following '(' uses the macro.
Taking the address of the function will not have a following '(', and
so would not be treated by CPP as a macro invocation.