Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!phil
From: phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <1991May2.210008.16035@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 2 May 91 21:00:08 GMT
References: <168@shasta.Stanford.EDU> <6157@trantor.harris-atd.com> <2110@talos.npri.com> <1991May1.222505.81@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <699@taumet.com>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 18

steve@taumet.com (Stephen Clamage) writes:

>Some compilers already do this.  For example, our compilers (available from
>Oregon Software) have a "compatibility" switch which allows compilation of
>old-style code, including old-style preprocessing.  In this mode, ANSI
>features (including ANSI preprocessing and function prototypes) are still
>available, allowing gradual migration of programs from old-style to ANSI C.

Good.

But is the rate of "gradual migration" catching up with, or falling behind,
all the porting of old-style?  From the sounds of some responses, it is
falling behind fast.
-- 
 /***************************************************************************\
/ Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu   |  Guns don't aim guns at  \
\ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks  |  people; CRIMINALS do!!  /
 \***************************************************************************/