4 ms·

> IIRC Clang implements a C++ style auto, while GCC implements a C style auto, which has subtle differences for 'auto pointers' - not sure if those differences

• flohofwoe 2y ago
  Well, not in C :) Here's an example where Clang and GCC don't agree about the behaviour of auto in C23: https://www.godbolt.org/z/WchMK18vx https://www.godbolt.org/z/WchMK18vx IIRC Clang implements 'C++ semantics' for C23 auto, while GCC doesn't. Last time I brought that up it turned out that both behaviours are 'standard compliant', because the C23 standard explicitly allows such differing behaviour (it basically standardized the status quo even if different compilers disagreed about auto semantics in C). PS: at least Clang has a warning now in pedantic mode: https://www.godbolt.org/z/ovj5r4axn https://www.godbolt.org/z/ovj5r4axn
  • johnisgood 2y ago
    This difference of implementation in two of the major C compilers leaves a bad taste in my mouth. :/
  • cpeterso 2y ago
    > PS: at least Clang has a warning now in pedantic mode: https://www.godbolt.org/z/ovj5r4axn https://www.godbolt.org/z/ovj5r4axn Did you mean gcc? Your link shows a gcc error: <source>:3:5: error: 'auto' requires a plain identifier, possibly with attributes, as declarator 3 | auto* p = &i; | ^~~~
    • flohofwoe 2y ago
      No, GCC is right to error there, because the code uses a C++-ism (the '*' after 'auto' only makes sense in C++ but not in C).