Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 255171
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 11, 20262026-05-11T21:54:30+00:00 2026-05-11T21:54:30+00:00

GCC seems to allow and / or to be used instead of && /

  • 0

GCC seems to allow “and” / “or” to be used instead of “&&” / “||” in C++ code; however, as I expected, many compilers (notably MSVC 7) do not support this. The fact that GCC allows this has caused some annoyances for us in that we have different developers working on the same code base on multiple platforms and occasionally, these “errors” slip in as people are switching back and forth between Python and C++ development.

Ideally, we would all remember to use the appropriate syntax, but for those situations where we occasionally mess up, it would be really nice if GCC didn’t let it slide. Anybody have any ideas on approaches to this?

If “and” and “or” are simply #defines then I could #undef when using GCC but I worry that it is more likely built into the compiler at more fundamental level.

Thanks.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-11T21:54:30+00:00Added an answer on May 11, 2026 at 9:54 pm

    They are part of the C++ standard, see for instance this StackOverflow answer (which quotes the relevant parts of the standard).

    Another answer in the same question mentions how to do the opposite: make them work in MSVC.

    To disable them in GCC, use -fno-operator-names. Note that, by doing so, you are in fact switching to a non-standard dialect of C++, and there is a risk that you end up writing code which might not compile correctly on standard-compliant compilers (for instance, if you declare a variable with a name that would normally be reserved).

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Anyone know this compiler feature? It seems GCC support that. How does it work?
I currently have the gcc4.7 and the gcc4.7-base, etc., packages installed but GCC seems
GCC's recent support for atomic operations (as described here ) is great, and is
gcc 4.4.2 I have the following code: char channels[] = NumberOfChannel = [2]; sscanf(channels,
C++ doesn't allow a class containing an array of items that are not default
The code is as follows , Seems like nothing wrong with it at all.
The following example code compiles under gcc and works as I would hope. It
There is a code fragment that GCC produce the result I didn't expect: (I
Code declaring anonymous structs in a for loop worked fine in gcc with -std=c99/gnu99
I'm having trouble with a gcc inline asm statement; gcc seems to think the

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.