From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Meissner To: Dima Volodin , Toon Moene Cc: David Edelsohn , Mark Mitchell , craig AT jcb-sc.com, nik AT tiuk.ti.com, richard.earnshaw AT arm.com, N8TM AT aol.com, gcc AT gcc.gnu.org, espie AT quatramaran.ens.fr Subject: Re: type based aliasing again Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:38:00 -0000 Message-id: <19990914203459.C5560@elmo.cygnus.com> References: <9909142158.AA25870@marc.watson.ibm.com> <37DED310.96247CB9@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> <37ead641.94869910@localhost> X-SW-Source: 1999-09/msg00572.html On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:15:06PM +0000, Dima Volodin wrote: > On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:58:24 +0200, you wrote: > > >What I'm trying to establish is whether those programmers had a right to > >believe this was allowed *based on the Standard previous to the current > >Standard*, namely K&R I. If K&R I allowed it, it is an incompatible > >change with ANSI/ISO C 89, and I am willing to cut the old hands some > >slack. > > K&R I (What is it, anyway? Is it the language accepted by the original > dmr's compiler? Or by the pcc by S.C.Johnson? Or what?) allowed a lot of > things that wouldn't work in the Standard. And even there its not helpful. For example, K&R-I explicitly uses a ref/def model (where you must have one definition of a global variable in separate files and everything else must be an "extern" reference to it), while the UNIX C compilers have traditionally implemented the common model for global variables). Also, if you go by K&R-I, you cannot derrive pointers to functions due to a typo in the book. > >Toon Moene (toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl) > > Dima -- Michael Meissner, Cygnus Solutions PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886 email: meissner@cygnus.com phone: 978-486-9304 fax: 978-692-4482 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Meissner To: Dima Volodin , Toon Moene Cc: David Edelsohn , Mark Mitchell , craig@jcb-sc.com, nik@tiuk.ti.com, richard.earnshaw@arm.com, N8TM@aol.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, espie@quatramaran.ens.fr Subject: Re: type based aliasing again Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <19990914203459.C5560@elmo.cygnus.com> References: <9909142158.AA25870@marc.watson.ibm.com> <37DED310.96247CB9@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> <37ead641.94869910@localhost> X-SW-Source: 1999-09n/msg00572.html Message-ID: <19990930180200.jj86NG4G5V4KrKa7gJf0WgskQ01TwhGVgioz7RcwNuM@z> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:15:06PM +0000, Dima Volodin wrote: > On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:58:24 +0200, you wrote: > > >What I'm trying to establish is whether those programmers had a right to > >believe this was allowed *based on the Standard previous to the current > >Standard*, namely K&R I. If K&R I allowed it, it is an incompatible > >change with ANSI/ISO C 89, and I am willing to cut the old hands some > >slack. > > K&R I (What is it, anyway? Is it the language accepted by the original > dmr's compiler? Or by the pcc by S.C.Johnson? Or what?) allowed a lot of > things that wouldn't work in the Standard. And even there its not helpful. For example, K&R-I explicitly uses a ref/def model (where you must have one definition of a global variable in separate files and everything else must be an "extern" reference to it), while the UNIX C compilers have traditionally implemented the common model for global variables). Also, if you go by K&R-I, you cannot derrive pointers to functions due to a typo in the book. > >Toon Moene (toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl) > > Dima -- Michael Meissner, Cygnus Solutions PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886 email: meissner@cygnus.com phone: 978-486-9304 fax: 978-692-4482