home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sun001.spd.dsccc.com!jmccarty
- From: jmccarty@sun1307.spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Looking for semaphore example.
- Date: 4 Apr 1996 22:35:15 GMT
- Organization: DSC Communications Corporation
- Message-ID: <4k1ir3$i4s@sun001.spd.dsccc.com>
- References: <4jc5hd$1vlv@ilx018.iil.intel.com> <828366149snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <4jq01e$9kq@solutions.solon.com> <4jro8kINN85c@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: sun1307.spd.dsccc.com
-
- In article <4jro8kINN85c@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>,
- Kazimir Kylheku <c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
- )In article <4jq01e$9kq@solutions.solon.com>,
- )Peter Seebach <seebs@solutions.solon.com> wrote:
- )>In article <828366149snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>,
- )>Lawrence Kirby <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
- )>>>Unless you wanted to implement software-level coprocesses or the like,
- )>>>which you could do.
- )>
- )>>Strictly conforming?
- )>
- )>Sure. You could write strictly conforming C which parses and translates
- )>one or more programs in an arbitrary language, and gives them various
- )>"calls" they can make, which could include semaphores.
-
- Such a program might be compliant, but it would not be portable. The
- main reason for compliance is to achieve portability. If one is a priori
- willing to give up portability, then why worry about compliance?
-
- Mike
- --
- ----
- char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
-
- I don't speak for DSC. <- They make me say that.
-