Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:37170 comp.std.c:4472
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Portability / C Language Implementation
Keywords: portable, implementation, architecture
Message-ID: <15487@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 16 Mar 91 22:18:24 GMT
References: <12374@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 15

In article <12374@pt.cs.cmu.edu> hjelm@g.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Mark Hjelm) writes:
>Since the world's not quite all a 32-bit workstation (formerly "Vax"),
>I would be interested in generating a list of the characteristics of
>other architectures as related to supporting C.  My interest is for
>writing portable programs and supporting distributed programs in
>heterogeneous computing environments.  I would like descriptions of
>various alternative architectures, as well as descriptions of how the
>C compilers deal with them.  Topics of interest include: ...

This is the wrong approach if you're truly interested in developing
portable C code.  Simply take it for granted that there are a wide
variety of computer architectures, and avoid relying on architecture.
The C standard spells out the constraints that must be followed by a
strictly conforming program; follow them carefully and you should
have no problems with the diversity of computer architectures.