all other non-C89 assumptions that Parrot depends on. }}
For context, the rest of the section where this appears reads:
C code must generally depend on only those language and library features
specified by the ISO C89 standard.
In addition, C code may assume that any pointer value can be coerced to
On Thursday 19 April 2007 11:24, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> This patch works around the following error message:
>
> "src/inter_call.c", line 1350: non-constant initializer: op "U&"
> "src/inter_call.c", line 1350: non-constant initializer: op "U&"
> "src/inter_call.c", line 1351: non-constant initia
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 11:24:43AM -0700, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
> # Please include the string: [perl #42615]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42615 >
>
>
> This pat
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #42615]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42615 >
This patch works around the following error message:
"src/inter_call.c", line 1350: n
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:22:02 -0700, Bill Coffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 neithe
Bill Coffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the info...
> Apparently,
>gcc -ansi -pedantic
> is supposed to be ANSI C '89.
Not really. It's pedantic ;)
> Incidentally, I tried adding -ansi and -pedantic and I got lots of
> warnings, like "long long" not supported by ANSI C'89, etc
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
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 su
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 02:51:15PM -0400, 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 descrip
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 thin
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?
Thanks,
- Bill
11 matches
Mail list logo
