Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!w-edwinh
From: w-edwinh@microsoft.UUCP (Edwin Hoogerbeets)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Lattice bugs still?
Message-ID: <9532@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 14 Dec 89 19:45:01 GMT
References: <10415@etana.tut.fi>
Reply-To: w-edwinh@microsoft.UUCP (Edwin Hoogerbeets)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 29

(the following minor flame is not directed at you, Pertti)

In article <10415@etana.tut.fi> pl@sparrow.tut.fi (Lehtinen Pertti) writes:
>	2)
>		I can now use variables defined as __chip, but
>		following caused still sime problems.
>
>	char __chip s[128];

Gag! Barf! Ack! Ooopthhhh!

To quote from the bible of C, K&R second edition, pg. 233:

A preprocessor line of the form

	# pragma token-sequence[opt]

causes the processor to perform an implementation-dependent action. An
unrecognized pragma is ignored.

Why __chip? We've got the PORTABLE mechanism already. Why not use it?
Was there some good technical reason? (__chip must go. This is not 
negotiable. ;-)

The idea behind __chip is good, though. It would be really useful to
have as a pragma. 

Edwin
Reading legalese mush can turn your brain to guacamole. - RKMs A&I