Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Defining Portable (Was: Invalid pointer addresses)
Message-ID: <12189@steinmetz.ge.com>
Date: 20 Sep 88 17:56:22 GMT
References: <12088@steinmetz.ge.com> <8453@smoke.ARPA> <10595@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <1988Sep16.170408.16304@utzoo.uucp> <8517@smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 14


  I think people should be very careful to appreciate that standard
conformant is not the same as portable. Use of ANSI constructs such as
volatile, const, and common extensions such as enum will just about
guarantee that someones fairly common compiler will break. I still get
complaints that passing struct by value isn't valid C.

  dpANS has a lot of stuff which is missing from most compilers, even
though it may not be the SAME stuff. Header files may be missing or may
be missing pieces, etc.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me