Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!p11.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org!jim.nutt From: jim.nutt@p11.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (jim nutt) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C compilers with integrated preprocessors Message-ID: <692.2337CE6F@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Date: 20 Sep 88 22:49:07 GMT Sender: ufgate@stjhmc.fidonet.org (newsout1.24) Organization: FidoNet node 1:114/15.11 - St Joes Hospi, Phoenix AZ Lines: 25 > From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) > Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. > Message-ID: <1292@scolex> > In article <3999@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > >It is agreed that a Real ANSI-conforming C compiler might not supply a > >separate preprocessor pass, but who cares? Such a C compiler would be > >an instant commercial failure. > > I'm sure Microsoft will be sorry to hear that MSC 4.x and upwards (at > least) > and QuickC are doomed to be "an instant commercial failure." (True, > they're > not strictly conforming, yet, but they're trying to get there.) not to mention nearly every other ms-dos c compiler. a few have separate preprocessor passes (or supply a separate preprocessor [turbo c]), but most do not. jim nutt 'the computer handyman' -- St. Joseph's Hospital/Medical Center - Usenet <=> FidoNet Gateway Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!15.11!jim.nutt