Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mrlaxs.mrl.uiuc.edu!andreess
From: andreess@mrlaxs.mrl.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: I am missing something important while porting to AIX 3.1?
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.203350.5869@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 91 20:33:50 GMT
References: <1991Feb6.020623.26983@lavaca.uh.edu> <1991Feb6.050344.1516@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Feb6.174248.14923@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com>
Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois, Urbana
Lines: 25

In article <1991Feb6.174248.14923@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com> jsalter@slo.awdpa.ibm.com (Jim Salter) writes:
>>Also, I avoid xlc and c89 like the Black Plague.  But that's another
>>story.
>
>Why?  I don't understand this comment at all.  xlc and c89 (as defined in
>the file /etc/xlc.cfg) just define *strict* ANSI C conformance.  If your
>code is strictly conforming (nothing outside of the ANSI C standard) then
>it should compile just fine.  If you believe your code is ANSI C compliant
>and it doesn't compile with xlc or c89, then you need to open an
>APAR/problem-report with IBM, or at least give us a chance to see the code.
>
>I'm sorry, but I'm tired of seeing global accusations like this without proof.

Like I said, that's another story.  What I meant was, there are very few
programs ``out there'' that will compile with xlc/c89, which is obviously
because most existing programs are K&R C, not ANSI C.  Thus, I use cc
when I port existing code rather than xlc/c89 (often even for code that
looks ANSI-compliant, just because there's a better chance cc will compile
it with few modifications).

Marc

--
Marc Andreessen___________University of Illinois Materials Research Laboratory
Internet: andreessen@uimrl7.mrl.uiuc.edu____________Bitnet: andreessen@uiucmrl