Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Another sizeof question
Message-ID: <14505@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 17 Nov 90 14:29:42 GMT
References: <1990Nov2.034300.3065@tkou02.enet.dec.com> <4146@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <3928@male.EBay.Sun.COM>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <3928@male.EBay.Sun.COM> diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa) writes:
>If this is really true, it defeats the purpose of #pragma.  My understanding
>was that #pragma may have any implementation-defined effect WHICH does not
>change the meaning of a conforming program (though it may change the effect
>of a nonconforming program).  That definition would have been far more useful.

That was my argument, but when Walter Murray requested a formal ruling on
this, even I had to agree that the wording in the C standard leads to the
conclusion that a strictly conforming program cannot use #pragma.