Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!me!radio!cks
From: cks@radio.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Piggyback CPU boards (also legal C expressions)
Message-ID: <856@radio.toronto.edu>
Date: 17 Dec 87 20:49:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: radio.856
Posted: Thu Dec 17 15:49:56 1987
References: <8712111630.AA17999@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: cks@radio.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann)
Organization: Newsreaders Anonymous
Lines: 23
Summary: legal then, maybe not now.

In article <8712111630.AA17999@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
>>Speaking of things breaking, is a numeric constant of the form 08 or 09
>>strictly legal under K&R C? It showed up in an old C-A program compiled under
>
>	Not legal.  It is supposed to be octal.

 It is actually legal in K&R C. I don't know about its status in ANSI
C; H&S says that 'originally, C also allowed the digits 8 and 9 in
octal constants, but using them was always considered to be bad style'
which leads me to suspect that many modern compilers no longer support
them. The people in comp.lang.c would probably know the current status
if anyone is really interested.

 Our Sun compiler (SunOS 3.4) supports them; Amiga Aztec C doesn't.
Does anyone know if Lattice C does?

[References: H&S section 2.7.1 (page 17 of the first edition) and K&R
page 180, section 2.4.1.]
-- 
	"Hey, that's why Dad moved to Colorado. He sits Zen now.  Me, I like 
	 the mountains."
Chris Siebenmann		{allegra,mnetor,decvax,pyramid}!utgpu!radio!cks
cks@radio.toronto.edu	     or	...!utgpu!{yetti!lethe, darwin}!ontmoh!cks