This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Darwin vs. libstdc++

To: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
Subject: Re: Darwin vs. libstdc++
From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 19:17:54 +0100
Cc: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>,Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <F800024E-BC81-11D5-B475-003065F97F7C@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> <20011009133221.F21950@disaster.jaj.com> <3BC33ADA.D6F0C2A1@apple.com>

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.

Neil.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Darwin vs. libstdc++
  - From: Stan Shebs
- Re: Darwin vs. libstdc++
  - From: Dale Johannesen

References:
- Darwin vs. libstdc++
  - From: Bryce McKinlay
- Re: Darwin vs. libstdc++
  - From: Phil Edwards
- Re: Darwin vs. libstdc++
  - From: Stan Shebs

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]