Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!panews.awdpa.ibm.com!slo.awdpa.ibm.com!jsalter
From: jsalter@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: I am missing something important while porting to AIX 3.1?
Message-ID: <1991Feb7.013528.12513@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com>
Date: 7 Feb 91 01:35:28 GMT
References: <1991Feb6.020623.26983@lavaca.uh.edu> <1991Feb6.050344.1516@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Feb6.174248.14923@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com> <1991Feb6.203350.5869@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com (news id)
Reply-To: jsalter@slo.awdpa.ibm.com (Jim Salter)
Organization: IBM PSLOB Development, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 23

In article <1991Feb6.203350.5869@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> andreess@mrlaxs.mrl.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen) writes:
>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).

That's the beauty of the the implementation.  xlc, c89, and cc all invoke
the same program.  The *only* difference is the options passed to 
/usr/lpp/xlc/bin/xlcentry.  You can define your own options or assembler or
loader or loader options in /etc/xlc.cfg.  The only shame is that you can't
define which C pre-processor to use, though the BSD docs tell how to do that.

Besides, if your program compiles under xlc or c89, you pretty much KNOW
you're ANSI C compliant.  :-)

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

jim/jsalter  IBM PSLOB, Palo Alto  T465/(415)855-4427  VNET: JSALTER at AUSVMQ
Internet: jsalter@slo.awdpa.ibm.com         UUCP: ..!uunet!ibmsupt!jsalter 
  PS/2 it, or DIE!  :-)  The ramblings above have nothing to do with Big Blue.