J
jacob navia
Consider this nice C program:
short long n;
signed unsigned b;
const long const long a;
unsigned double w;
signed float k;
short double q;
unsigned long double z;
I was astonished that my dear lcc-win very bad diagnostic messages
wrote for those errors.
After correcting that, I passed this code through MSVC and it
wrote a correct diagnostic for all of those errors... excepting
the last.
unsigned long double is legal?
I have serious doubts.
Besides, MSVC emitted just a warning for repeated qualifiers like
"const long const long"... Isn't that an error?
gcc wrote correct diagnostics for all of them, and all were errors,
not warnings.
PellesC missed "const long const long" completely, but the errors
were as I had it: just "Invalid type specification" instead of a
more specific error.
short long n;
signed unsigned b;
const long const long a;
unsigned double w;
signed float k;
short double q;
unsigned long double z;
I was astonished that my dear lcc-win very bad diagnostic messages
wrote for those errors.
After correcting that, I passed this code through MSVC and it
wrote a correct diagnostic for all of those errors... excepting
the last.
unsigned long double is legal?
I have serious doubts.
Besides, MSVC emitted just a warning for repeated qualifiers like
"const long const long"... Isn't that an error?
gcc wrote correct diagnostics for all of them, and all were errors,
not warnings.
PellesC missed "const long const long" completely, but the errors
were as I had it: just "Invalid type specification" instead of a
more specific error.