Re: [AD] MSVC 8 cl flags

[Michal Molhanec <michal@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Evert Glebbeek wrote:
> Eh? I think there's some mixup somewhere. A C89 compiler is definately a C 
> compiler and not a C++ compiler. I don't think I said otherwise...?
> What I said is that a C++ compiler is not a C compiler. Since C89 is 
> practically a subset of C++ (there are only a few minor differences), this 
> isn't an issue with C89 code, but it is an issue with C99 code, which can 
> contain constructs that are not standard C++.
>
> I didn't. I said that a C++ compiler isn't a C compiler.
> But maybe I didn't make myself clear: to the best of my knowledge, MSVC is 
> actually primarily a C++ compiler (despite the name), more than a plain C 
> compiler. Sure, it compiles C code, but any C++ compiler can compile C89 
> code.
> If I'm wrong, please correct me.

MSVC is both C and C++ compiler.

There are important differences between C89 and C++, e.g. f() is f(void) 
in C++ but not in C89.

And the MSVC C compiler is really C compiler, it even understands K&R C, 
e.g. this code:

main() {
    return f(3);
}

f(v)
int v;
{
    return printf("%d", v);
}

compiles with MSVC 7.1 (.NET 2003) without any warning on default 
warning level.

Clearly MSVC has full C compiler, it's not just C++ compiler.

--
Regards,
    Michal

ICQ# 175762750