home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.iadfw.net!usenet
- From: Larry Weiss <lfw@iadfw.net>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: pre-ANSI compatibility
- Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 16:35:56 -0600
- Organization: ...
- Message-ID: <313A1ECC.2EE6@iadfw.net>
- References: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <4gvrffINNlqo@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <4h4j31$1ga3@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <TANMOY.96Feb29144112@qcd.lanl.gov> <4hbd8q$ral@solutions.solon.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: dal04-25.ppp.iadfw.net
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I)
-
- Peter Seebach wrote:
- >
- > In article <TANMOY.96Feb29144112@qcd.lanl.gov>,
- > Tanmoy Bhattacharya <tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov> wrote:
- > >And yes, there are free software writers who have stopped writing
- > >pre-ANSI code on grounds of `portability'.
- >
- > Although the FSF still largely supports pre-ANSI compilers, RMS
- > did some surveying last year and asserted that support of
- > pre-ANSI systems is no longer worth any effort.
- >
-
- We have come to the same conclusion at work. On workstations where the
- vendors do not supply a ANSI C compiler (SUN OS 4.1, for example) we
- use the gcc solution.
-
- Others in the company designed some macro solutions that would emit either
- ANSI prototype like function definitions or old style function definitions,
- but my team never used them. Feels good to use C and nothing but C.
-