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