Direct disk writing

[Tech07]

User-defined types and functions are not "extensions".

Try compiling something that includes windows.h without MS extensions.

(You weren't suggesting that the Windows API was nothing but functions that
adhere to the C std were you?).

 

[James Dow Allen]

$ make
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wformat-nonliteral -Wcast-align
-Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Winline -Wundef
-Wnested-externs -Wcast-qual -Wshadow -Wconversion -Wwrite-strings
-ffloat-store -fno-builtin -O2 -g -pg -c -o silly.o silly.c
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wformat-nonliteral -Wcast-align
-Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Winline -Wundef
-Wnested-externs -Wcast-qual -Wshadow -Wconversion -Wwrite-strings
-ffloat-store -fno-builtin -O2 -g -pg -o silly silly.o

Didn't you forget
-Wwarn_about_ridiculous_number_of_warning_options

 

[Nobody]

None of the above are defined by a user but by an implementation - and
that is known as an properitary extension that is not on topic to clc.

Er, no.

From the perspective of both the language definition and a particular C
implementation, it makes no difference whether a type or function is
declared in a source file which was written by the author of the file
which references it, or a source file written by a co-worker, or a binary
library and headers supplied by a third party (which may or may not be the
same third party which supplied the compiler).

There's "same translation unit" and "different translation unit". The
C language doesn't recognise any further subdivisions.