On Thursday 17 May 2007 11:13:45 jerry gay wrote: > On 5/17/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, our headers (and even some system headers) don't follow > > C89: > then what the heck does c89 compliance mean for parrot, if it's beyond > our control because we can't change system headers? i mean, how do you > enforce that compliance, if the compiler can't do it for you? maybe > this is a case where "almost" is good enough--i don't know. Hopefully we can get to a state where the only problems remaining are warnings. That would require someone with more C experience across platforms and compilers (*cough*NicholasSteveAndy*cough*) to interject more wisdom, I fear. > somehow i missed C<*s = 0;>, which made the declaration illegal. i'm > not used to looking at code with '=' sign alignment, maybe that's what > threw me off. You should get used to it. It's nice. > anyway, it was a stupid mistake on my part. Ditto mine, especially because I was *trying* to get closer to C89. > however... why is 's' nulled out, directly after it's initialized to > 's_key'? that looks funny. The first is a pointer assignment and the second is a pointee assignment. I'm not sure how useful the second is, but it was in the original code, so I left it. -- c
