On Monday 24 March 2003 23:57, you wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am looking for information on the behavior of ANSI C while compiling
> the following method:
>
> int f1(int a) {
> int a = a;
> return a;
> }
>
>
> in the current versions of gcc this compiles, and shadowing of the given
> a is allowed w
Mark Veltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If i am not mistaken - this in not so in ANSI C [i might be mistaken...
> > the ritchie&ker. book is not so clear about this point]
It gives a warning about shadowing. I don't know what the standard
says about it. For all I know, it may be implementati
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003, Mark Veltzer wrote about "Re: ANSI C":
> P.S. Ritchie and Kerninghan didn't even dream of GCC when they thought of C so
> the small book is of little use these days.
Actually, Kernighan & Ritchie have a second edition of their book, published
in 1
Vadim Vygonets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoth Oleg Goldshmidt on Tue, Mar 25, 2003:
> > > > how compliant is gcc with ansi?
> >
> > Very.
>
> C99?
http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
--
Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=
T
Vadim Vygonets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoth Nadav Har'El on Tue, Mar 25, 2003:
> > And of course, there is the text of the standard itself, which ISO probably
> > charge $1000 (or something similarly outrageous)
>
> The Standard may (probably) be obtained from the Standards
> Institution o
Quoth Oleg Goldshmidt on Tue, Mar 25, 2003:
> Mark Veltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > If i am not mistaken - this in not so in ANSI C [i might be mistaken...
> > > the ritchie&ker. book is not so clear about this point]
>
> It gives a warning about shadowing. I don't know what the standa
Quoth Nadav Har'El on Tue, Mar 25, 2003:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003, Mark Veltzer wrote about "Re: ANSI C":
> > P.S. Ritchie and Kerninghan didn't even dream of GCC when they thought of C so
> > the small book is of little use these days.
>
> Actually, Ker
Vadim Vygonets wrote:
> >
> > Actually, Kernighan & Ritchie have a second edition of
> their book, published
> > in 1988, which corresponds to ANSI C.
>
> It's quite hard to get the first edition these days, don't you
> agree?
>
Depends on who you ask - I've got a first-edition right here on m
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003, Vadim Vygonets wrote about "Re: ANSI C":
> > Actually, Kernighan & Ritchie have a second edition of their book, published
> > in 1988, which corresponds to ANSI C.
>
> It's quite hard to get the first edition these days, don't you
Aviram Jenik wrote on 2003-03-25:
> Vadim Vygonets wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, Kernighan & Ritchie have a second edition of
> > their book, published
> > > in 1988, which corresponds to ANSI C.
> >
> > It's quite hard to get the first edition these days, don't you
> > agree?
> >
>
> Depends on wh
Beni Cherniavsky Wrote:
> There is a refernce section at the end (at least in the second
> edition). Admittedly, it's a too dry and concise to look up
> conveniently. But the book is great, I learnt from it too.
>
You're right - I didn't remember that, but I just looked and there is
indeed an a
Quoth Nadav Har'El on Tue, Mar 25, 2003:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003, Vadim Vygonets wrote about "Re: ANSI C":
> > A publically available draft from August 3, 1998:
>
> Well, I suppose this cannot be a draft of a standard that was defined over
> 8 years earlier...
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003, Vadim Vygonets wrote about "Re: ANSI C":
> > I suppose it is a draft of a newer standard (?) called
> > C9X. When people speak of ANSI C, they don't normally refer to C9X. If you
> > want your programs to be very portable, you better not rel
Quoth Nadav Har'El on Tue, Mar 25, 2003:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003, Vadim Vygonets wrote about "Re: ANSI C":
> > > I suppose it is a draft of a newer standard (?) called
> > > C9X. When people speak of ANSI C, they don't normally refer to C9X. If you
> >
14 matches
Mail list logo
