Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!ukc!eagle!icdoc!cam-cl!am
From: am@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alan Mycroft)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Types
Message-ID: <736@jenny.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 22-Jul-87 10:12:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: jenny.736
Posted: Wed Jul 22 10:12:31 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 08:41:32 EDT
References: <7264@brl-adm.ARPA> <734@sdchema.sdchem.UUCP>
Reply-To: am@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alan Mycroft)
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK
Lines: 13

In article <684@haddock.UUCP> karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) writes:
>>My understanding of [Oct86 dpANS] is that a C compiler which treats
>>   f() { asm("ret"); }
>>as anything other than a call to [an ordinary function named "asm"] is broken
>"Broken" is a bit strong.  Such compilers (which will likely continue to
>exist in the ANSI world) will simply be "not strictly conforming".
>
My dpANS gives no such notion as a "strictly conforming compiler".
(strictly conforming PROGRAM, yes).  It says:  "A conforming hosted
implementation shall accept any strictly conforming program.", and
thus (assuming that by 'accept', ANSI means 'and gives the correct answer')
we see that if f() does not call asm() then the compiler is not
a "conforming hosted implementation".  I.e. not ANSI C.