Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uwmcsd1!nic.MR.NET!umn-cs!ns!ddb
From: ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Machines for testing portability (was Re: "Numerical Recipes in C" is nonportable code)
Message-ID: <795@ns.UUCP>
Date: 31 Aug 88 15:28:33 GMT
References: <664@lindy.Stanford.EDU> <6758@megaron.arizona.edu> <718@gtx.com> <13258@mimsy.UUCP> <531@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu> <1673@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <673@proxftl.UUCP>
Reply-To: ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet)
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Lines: 28

In article <673@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
>In article <1673@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) writes:
>: The best way to learn to write portable code is to be required to port
>: your applications to Vaxes, 68000s, and PCs. (I have all 3 on my desk!)
>
>We find that using 68000's (Suns and Macintoshes) and IBM-PC's
>(in the various memory models) is sufficient to catch most
>portability problems.
>
>Anybody else have suggestions on sets of systems for checking
>portability? 
  No portability check is complete until you've tried some word-oriented
rather than byte-oriented system.  Preferrably something with a word-size
not a multiple of 8 bits (like 60, or 36).  CDC, Unisys, Honeywell, and of
course the DEC PDP-10 series all come to mind.
  Also, while I haven't tried it personally, I remember a LONG string of
articles years ago in some group with the subject "Porting to PRIME seen
as a probable negative experience"; I seem to remember it has to do with
different types of pointers being of different sizes, none of which would
fit in in an int.



-- 
	-- David Dyer-Bennet
	...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb
	ddb@Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb
	Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 hst/2400/1200/300