Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"

On 04/04/2025 21:18, Keith Thompson wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]

It is easy to write code that is valid C23, using a new feature copied
from C++, but which is not valid C++ :
>
constexpr size_t N = sizeof(int);
int * p = malloc(N);

 It's much easier than that.
      int class;
 Every C compiler will accept that.  Every C++ compiler will reject
it.  (I think the standard only requires a diagnostic, which can
be non-fatal, but I'd be surprised to see a C or C++ compiler that
generates an object file after encountering a syntax error).
 Muttley seems to think that because, for example, "gcc -c foo.c"
will compile C code and "gcc -c foo.cpp" will compile C++ code,
the C and C++ compilers are the same compiler.  In fact they're
distinct frontends with shared backend code, invoked differently
based on the source file suffix.  (And "g++" is recommended for C++
code, but let's not get into that.)
 For the same compiler to compile both C and C++, assuming you don't
unreasonably stretch the meaning of "same compiler", you'd have to
have a parser that conditionally recognizes "class" as a keyword or
as an identifier, among a huge number of other differences between
the two grammars.  As far as I know, nobody does that.

Mr. Flibble's universal compiler?  :-)

 You and I know he's wrong.  Arguing with him is a waste of everyone's
time.
 

Yes, it seems that way.  Sometimes he makes posts that are worth answering or correcting, but the threads with him inevitably go downhill.