worrying about other compilers in my opinion. Having gcc compile
non-portable code accepted by other compilers is a useful goal, but
one of low priority compared to maintaining compatibility as far as
possible between gcc versions.
You mean like the change between 2.95 that worked the way Howard
wanted it to, and 3.x (I dont know the value of x where the change
happened) where it doesn't?
This compiles on 2.95.3:
(There is whitespace at the end of the following line)
// comment \\
int x = 0;
int y = 1;
int foo() { return x + y;}
But doesn't on 3.4.4. I dont have earlier versions of 2.x or 3.x
to narrow it down further. Sorry. I beleive Pinski posted the
actual changelog entry where the change occured.
Kean
