[ACCEPTED]-Is a C++ preprocessor identical to a C preprocessor?-c-preprocessor

Accepted answer

Score: 21

The C++03 preprocessor is (at least intended 17 to be) similar to the C preprocessor before 16 C99. Although the wording and paragraph 15 numbers are slightly different, the only 14 technical differences I'm aware of between 13 the two are that the C++ preprocessor handles 12 digraphs and universal character names, which 11 are not present in C.

As of C99, the C preprocessor 10 added some new capabilities (e.g., variadic 9 macros) that do not exist in the current 8 version of C++. I don't remember for sure, but 7 don't believe that digraphs were added.

I 6 believe C++0x will bring the two in line 5 again (at least that's the intent). Again, the 4 paragraph numbers and wording won't be identical, but 3 I believe the intent is that they should 2 work the same (other than retaining the 1 differences mentioned above).

Score: 5

They are supposed to be the same: C++98 2 and C++03 should match C90, and C++0x should 1 match C99. There may be bugs in the wording, though.

Score: 5

Predefined macros differ between the preprocessors, mostly 4 for obvious language feature differences. E.g. compare:

C99 N1256 draft 6.10.8 "Predefined macro names"
C++11 N3337 draft 16.8 "Predefined macro names"

In 3 particular:

C requires you not to define __cplusplus, C++ uses it to represent the version
C uses __STDC__ to represent the version, C++ says is implementation defined and uses __cplusplus instead
C has __STDC_IEC_559__ and __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__ to indicate floating point characteristics, C++ does not and seems replace that with the per type std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559 constants
C does not have the macros prefixed with __STDCPP: _STDCPP_STRICT_POINTER_SAFETY__ and __STDCPP_THREADS__

As mentioned by DevSolar, C11 2 added many more defines which are not part 1 of C++11.

Source: stackoverflow.com

[ACCEPTED]-Is a C++ preprocessor identical to a C preprocessor?-c-preprocessor

Microsoft _s functions, are they part of the C++ standard now?

A most vexing parse error: constructor with no arguments

What is POSIX, any other interface standards which can replace it?

Integer division overflows

Object initialization without "new" C++

C++ default member initialization and constructors

What was Wrong with void main()?

Why will std::sort crash if the comparison function is not as operator <?

Is there a reason not to use the newest C++ standard?

Is for(auto i : unordered_map) guaranteed to have the same order every time?