Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mcnc!rti!sas!bts
From: bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: #pragma
Message-ID: <522@sas.UUCP>
Date: 30 May 88 20:14:43 GMT
References: <54080@sun.uucp> <11608@mimsy.UUCP> <7950@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1988May23.012636.1719@utzoo.uucp> <2765@umd5.umd.edu> <7960@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1770@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger)
Organization: SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC
Lines: 20

In article <1770@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jgm@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu (John Myers) writes:
|In article <7960@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes:
|
|While it may be illegal to exec rogue when #pragma is encountered (the
|standard needs to be clarified on this point and even then will
|probably be ignored for the most part--witness the "#pragma noalias"
|suggestions.), I fail to see how the standard can prohibit an
|implementation from issuing a warning in this case.

I fail to see how running rogue can be illegal if warnings are legal.  So long
as it spawns a new process to run rogue, and the code produced by the
compiler (and interpretation of the rest of the program) does not depend on
the results of the rogue game, I can't see how the standard prohibits it.

Yes, it's silly, but I still fail to see how it is prohibited.
-- 
--Brian, the man from
  Babble-on.                |Brian T. Schellenberger| ...!mcnc!rti!sas!bts     |
                            |104 Willoughby Lane    |work: (919) 467-8000 x7783|
                            |Cary, NC   27513       |home: (919) 469-9389      |