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 |