On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:53:31AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >Huh? they are not carefully written at all. This is why I said what > >is GNU C? Again the language is not written out so it means anything. > > So then clearly, since it means anything, we can change gcc to accept > pascal instead of C? Right? This is absurd.
Mike, you wrote "GNU C", not "ISO C". There's no spec for the former.
