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. So long, as my code works, I'm happy. Incidentally, I tried adding -ansi and -pedantic and I got lots of warnings, like "long long" not supported by ANSI C'89, etc. (how can you do 64 bit ints then?). I also got errors that caused outright failure. Perhaps it's best to forget the whole C'89 thing. But maybe someone should remove that from the documentation? Just a thought. -Bill On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:41:36 -0700, Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.c > >> patch is C89 compliant? > > > > I don't think the ANSI C89 spec is freely available, though I may be > > wrong. (Google didn't find it easily, but I don't always get along > > well with Google) If the patch builds without warning with parrot's > > standard switches then you should be OK. (ANSI C89 was the first big > > rev of C after the original K&R C. If you've got the second edition or > > later of the K&R C book, it uses the C89 spec) > > Also, if you're compiling with gcc, then you can pass "-std=c89" to the > compiler to enforce that particular standard. (Apparently--though I > haven't tried it.) I believe "-ansi" does the same thing. > > JEff > >
