Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:10795 comp.std.c:59 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!mtunx!whuts!homxb!hropus!ki4pv!tanner From: tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c Subject: Re: Why does C standard consider each compiler flag a separate implementation? Summary: "extreme example" indeed! it only happens to describe real life! Message-ID: <6956@ki4pv.uucp> Date: 17 Jun 88 02:49:32 GMT References: <2746@ttrdc.UUCP> <1543@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM> Organization: Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence Beer Hall and Chapel Lines: 18 In article <1543@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM>, rns@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM (Rick Schubert) writes: ) ... For example, the compiler may have > something similar to: ) [ strcmp(*argv,"-x") ? compiler1() : compiler2() ] ) This is an extreme example ... I wouldn't call it a particularly extreme example. You get a different compiler (including different parser) under SCO xenix on the iAEC-386 if you ask for 16-bit code. This is done with a command line switch ("-M0", "-M1", "-M2"). You can also get a different linker by adding "-dos" to your command line. I think, therefore, that it is reasonable to consider different command line options to give potentially different implementations. Sometimes they do! -- rutgers!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner (better than it looks!) or... {allegra codas killer decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner