Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!ateng!chip
From: chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Portability of passing/operating on structures...
Message-ID: <1988Oct24.172209.27031@ateng.ateng.com>
Date: 24 Oct 88 21:22:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: ateng.1988Oct24.172209.27031
References: <8810111934.AA21941@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU> <8308@alice.UUCP> <23933@wlbr.EATON.COM> <1988Oct19.192548.28438@ateng.ateng.com> <35
Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL
Lines: 31

According to g-rh@XAIT.Xerox.COM (Richard Harter):
>       Yes, I pander to broken compilers.  I have to.

If I must work with a specific broken compiler, then I do the same: pay for
play has its own rules.  I was, of course, referring to situations where
there *is* a choice, such as when writing free software, in which case I
don't worry about it.

>	And the truth of the matter is that there is no penalty for
>writing portable code [...]

But there *is* a penalty in pandering to broken compilers.  If, for example,
a compiler breaks on:

	foo(s) short s;
	{
	    short *sp = &s;
	    int i = *sp;

	    printf("%d\n", i);
	}

Then you have to invest time and effort into avoiding a language construct
-- taking the address of a function parameter -- that should have worked.
(I know that some compilers do, in fact, break this contruct.) I'm sure all
will agree that spent time and effort are just as much a "penalty" as
execution time.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg             <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip>
A T Engineering             Me?  Speak for my company?  Surely you jest!
	   Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers.