Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!usc!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Mixing compilers
Message-ID: <4382@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 28 Sep 89 18:26:00 GMT
References: <816@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> <524@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <514.nlhp3@oracle.nl>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.std.c
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 25

In article <514.nlhp3@oracle.nl> bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig) writes:
>This was taken over from comp.lang.c:
>Article <524@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> by davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) says:
>|  Using libraries compiled with one compiler with programs compiled with
>|another is always a possible cause of problems with calling sequences.
>
>Does the pANS say anything about linking programs compiled with
>different compilers, e.g. in the case above.  You might even not know
>which compiler was used to compile the libraries.

Why?

I can link Fortran and assembler routines with my C code.  Why would
X3J11 have anything to say about that other than "Good Luck" ?

Once things are in machine code, how would the pANS apply at all?

Waitasec...  _Is_ there a prohibition in the pANS that says that one
can't use a full set of object-libraries, one that provides all of the
required routines, each with conforming behavior, that were compiled,
say, with SNOBOL?

				--Blair
				  "And what's the release date on
				   the ANS?"