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?"