Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!nosc!crash!ncr-sd!se-sd!rns
From: rns@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Rick Schubert)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Another sizeof question
Message-ID: <4146@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 6 Nov 90 20:49:13 GMT
References: <13171@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <492@taumet.com> <MEISSNER.90Oct30121525@osf.osf.org> <1990Nov2.034300.3065@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Organization: NCR Corp., Systems Engineering - San Diego
Lines: 16

In <1990Nov2.034300.3065@tkou02.enet.dec.com> diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa) writes:

>In article <MEISSNER.90Oct30121525@osf.osf.org> meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) writes:

>>When I worked at Data General on the MV C compiler, I added sizeof
>>support to the preprocessor

>As I understand the standard, a conforming processor is not allowed to
>support this extension, even with a warning, even with a #pragma, etc.

Others have replied to other aspects of this issue.  I just wanted to add 
that everything is allowed via a #pragma.  X3J11 reaffirmed at some point
that the behavior of any program with a #pragma is implementation defined,
so a #pragma can do anything.

-- Rick Schubert (rns@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM)