On Oct 26, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
The problem is that it's portable to every other compiler we've
tested. I am curious what icc and xlc do, but those are the only
two not tested.
Sorry, I have a different meaning of portable, for me the term is
related to the standard, meaning that standard conforming compilers
are required to process the code correctly.
"Happens to work on (some/most/all) compilers" is not the same
thing at all for me. COmpetent programmers write portable code
by knowing what the standard requires, not by trial and error :-)
I couldn't agree with you more on that statement. But I'll follow it
up with: competent tool writers make their tools so robust that even
incompetent programmers have trouble abusing them.
Now I know that no tool is fool proof. We all know the fools are
getting more clever every year. But here is a little thing we could
do to make our tool a little more fool proof.
-Howard
