Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpcea!hpfcdc!rml
From: rml@hpfcdc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Some questions about ANSI C
Message-ID: <5080005@hpfcdc.HP.COM>
Date: Fri, 28-Aug-87 14:46:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpfcdc.5080005
Posted: Fri Aug 28 14:46:06 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 19:38:03 EDT
References: <497@houxs.UUCP>
Organization: HP Ft. Collins, Co.
Lines: 18

> > As for the arguments about taking the address of setjmp, the draft
> > also said (under "environmental constraint") that the only context in
> > which setjmp can portably appear is comparison to an integral constant
> > expression.  This seems to mean that no true setjmp() function had to
> > exist, even before the Paris change.
> > 		Bob Lenk
> 
> Not true.  You could still have a call via a function pointer that points
> at setjmp() in a comparison context.

My mistake.  All that is limited is where calls to setjmp can appear.  I
misread it as a restriction on where the name setjmp can appear.  Broadening
the restriction in that way would be equivalent to saying that it must
be a macro without requiring implementations that use a true function to
define s mscro and rename the function.

		Bob Lenk
		{ihnp4, hplabs}!hpfcla!rml