🚀 go-pugleaf

fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) wrote:

>I did not claim that any or all Windows compilers were not conforming.
>I simply pointed out what they were required to do in order to conform.

>I did say that

>| I think the problem is due to Microsoft overlooking the C and C++
>| standards, not vice versa.

>but the problem I was referring to was not that Microsoft's compilers
>don't conform to the standard (most likely they do) but rather that
>Microsoft encourages people to write non-portable, non-standard-conforming
>code which is then subject to the usual problems of vendor lock-in.

YES, YES, YES.  This is IT.

*IF* Microsoft decides that it's profitable, they may in the future
allow a standard-conforming C++ program to be compiled and executed.
My guess is that they won't bother.  It'll be easy enough to feign
"true compatability" while taking as much liberty as GNU does,
blithely compiling and executing programs that the standard says
should fail with diagnostics.

I know full well that my Windows programs follow Microsoft's
standards, and not anyone elses; Microsoft C, not ANSI or ISO; ODBC,
not SQL-92 nor SAG CLI, etc.

My only hope of "portability" is on a smaller component level.  I can
write fully ANSI-compliant functions and objects, but once compiled
and linked into a Windows program the whole becomes Microsoft-defined.

For what it's worth, I think the answer to the subject line is "yes".
All Windows programs are ill-formed according to the C++ standard.

--
Richard Krehbiel, Kastle Systems, Arlington VA USA
rich@kastle.com (work) or richk@mnsinc.com (personal)
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  Moderation policy:
  http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html. ]