Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!caip!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Re: Vt100 v2.1 warnings
Message-ID: <811@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 14:51:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbmvax.811
Posted: Mon Sep 29 14:51:33 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Oct-86 01:24:00 EDT
References: <148600149@uiucuxc>
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 29

> Nf-ID: #R:sivax.UUCP:344:uiucuxc:148600149:000:1225
> Nf-From: uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU!hamilton    Sep 27 17:13:00 1986

>     i think my manx compiler would have emitted warnings about such cases,
> but it didn't (i got pristine-clean compiles, if i remember right).  also,
> "return value mismatch" sounds a bit like (eg) a routine declared "char"
> return()ing a pointer.

No, Aztec won't emit such warnings.  Aztec is much closer to the original
K & R C language, which Lattice has a number of enhancements based on the
emerging ANSI standard.  Note that they're only warnings, and except for
the case of trying to use 16 bit integers as pointers in Aztec (you'll
see this kind of thing done in lots of UN*X code; bets to port UN*X 
stuff to a 32 bit "int" compiler, like cc +l under Aztec), the Aztec
and Lattice compilers would produce equivalent code.  But you won't
get the warning from Aztec.

> 	wayne hamilton
> 	U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL




-- 
============================================================================
Dave Haynie    {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh

	These opinions are my own, though if you try them out, and decide
	that you really like them, a small donation would be appreciated.