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