Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site srcsip.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!srcsip!meier From: meier@srcsip.UUCP (Christopher M. Meier) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Uses of "short" ? Message-ID: <1931@srcsip.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 01:03:27 EST Article-I.D.: srcsip.1931 Posted: Tue Nov 5 01:03:27 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 07:50:45 EST References: <486@houxh.UUCP> <2600017@ccvaxa> <2883@sun.uucp> <48@hadron.UUCP> Reply-To: meier@srcsip.UUCP (Christopher M. Meier) Organization: Honeywell SRC (SIP), Mpls MN Lines: 27 Summary: In article <48@hadron.UUCP> jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes: > >Actually, if you are trying to write portable code, NEITHER is correct. >This particular problem is exactly why we have the typedef, off_t. > > off_t size_of_UNIX_file; > >is correct for portable code. > >However, either of the above is correct for throwaway code on machines >for which each one happens to be true. The trouble is, by not >developing good (read innocuous but portable) habits in throwaway code, >if you suddenly decide that you are an Implementor of Portable Code, >you will have a lot of trouble get used to the "new" way of writing >code. >-- > > Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP} Can someone suggest a good reference (or references) for developing good portable code? We are writing code that will eventually be used on machines other than our current 750 Vax running 4.2, and I would like to make sure we won't have to spend time rewriting code. Christopher Meier {ihnp4!umn-cs,philabs}!srcsip!meier Honeywell Systems & Research Center Signal & Image Processing / AIT