On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Alex Bochannek wrote:
> Ken Harrenstien <klh@panix.com> writes:
>> Yeah, looks OK to me, although personally I would be very afraid of
>> using a compiler with broken ternary code generation. You don't know
>> what else might be silently broken...
> Since at my "real job" we are working on migrating to GCC 4.1.1 as
> well, I am very interested in getting this resolved. I had someone
> else look at this and she agrees that it is a compiler bug and will
> forward it to our support vendor. (01)
I concur with this sentiment as well. It seems to me that changing valid
code to work around a compiler bug is ultimately a no-win situation; what
if GCC 4.1.69.105 does the right thing for ternary operators but screws up
on if/else? (02)
I have problems with the logf change too. logf is only supposed to be
defined if <math.h> is included, which it isn't in tapedd.c. It is
presumptious, to say the least, for a C compiler to decide that an
optional C library function is now a C language reserved word. (03)
I had this fight with people who insisted upon compiling my C code with
C++ compilers that had hissy-fits over my use of C++ reserved words. (04)
Including stdlib.h seems reasonable though. (05)
-- Mark -- (06)
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://chm.cim3.net/forum/nls-technical/
Shared Files: http://chm.cim3.net/file/work/project/nls-restore/
Community Portal: http://www.computerhistory.org/
To Post: mailto:nls-technical@chm.cim3.net
Community Wiki: http://chm.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?NLS_Restoration (08)
|