On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:22:02 -0700, Bill Coffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the info...
>
> Apparently,
>
>gcc -ansi -pedantic
>
> is supposed to be ANSI C '89. Equiv to -std=c89. Also, my
> Configure.pl generated make file uses neither -ansi nor -pedantic. I
> do have access
Bill Coffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the info...
> Apparently,
>gcc -ansi -pedantic
> is supposed to be ANSI C '89.
Not really. It's pedantic ;)
> Incidentally, I tried adding -ansi and -pedantic and I got lots of
> warnings, like "long long" not supported by ANSI C'89, etc
Thanks for the info...
Apparently,
gcc -ansi -pedantic
is supposed to be ANSI C '89. Equiv to -std=c89. Also, my
Configure.pl generated make file uses neither -ansi nor -pedantic. I
do have access to a K&R C v2, but it doesn't look like it's going to
match the actual practice. Oh well.
On Oct 21, 2004, at 11:51 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:25 AM -0700 10/21/04, Bill Coffman wrote:
I read somewhere that the requirement for parrot code is that it
should be compliant with the ANSI C'89 standard. Can someone point me
to a description of the C89 spec, so I can make sure my reg_alloc
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 02:51:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 11:25 AM -0700 10/21/04, Bill Coffman wrote:
> >I read somewhere that the requirement for parrot code is that it
> >should be compliant with the ANSI C'89 standard. Can someone point me
> >to a description of the C89 spec, so I can
At 11:25 AM -0700 10/21/04, Bill Coffman wrote:
I read somewhere that the requirement for parrot code is that it
should be compliant with the ANSI C'89 standard. Can someone point me
to a description of the C89 spec, so I can make sure my reg_alloc.c
patch is C89 compliant?
I don't think the ANSI
