Checksum: 16375
Lines: 25
Path: utzoo!sq!msb
From: msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader)
Date: Thu, 7-Jan-88 20:23:30 EST
Message-ID: <1988Jan7.202330.26524@sq.uucp>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pragmas
References: <11137@brl-adm.ARPA> <6966@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto


On the matter of portability of programs with #pragma lines,
Doug Gwyn writes:

> This is not explicitly stated; rather, it is deduced ...
> In fact, I used to think that the presence of #pragma "spoiled"
> the code, so that no portable application could ever contain a
> #pragma directive.  But some other X3J11 committee members finally
> convinced me that pragmas could not violate the abstract machine
> semantics specified by the rest of the standard.  I should note
> that at least one committee member has indicated that he still
> thinks the way I used to.  If in fact I now have the intended, or
> at least the consensual, understanding of this, then it would
> probably be wise to have a discussion like the above in the
> Rationale document.

It seems to me that users of a Standard should not have to make
deductions of such complexity that members of the Committee can
get them wrong.  This matter should be clarified right in the
Standard, even if it does create some redundancy, or at the most
in a footnote, and not tucked away in the Rationale.

Mark Brader				"C takes the point of view
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto			 that the programmer is always right"
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com				-- Michael DeCorte