home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!mimbres.cs.unm.edu!constellation!geohub.gcn.uoknor.edu!dwight
- From: dwight@geohub.gcn.uoknor.edu (Dwight D. Moore)
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix
- Subject: Re: More IBM "oversights"
- Message-ID: <Bz9A6n.6xq@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
- Date: 14 Dec 92 15:39:59 GMT
- Article-I.D.: constell.Bz9A6n.6xq
- References: <4348@unisql.UUCP>
- Sender: usenet@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu (Usenet Administrator)
- Reply-To: dwight@geohub.gcn.uoknor.edu
- Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, Univ. of Oklahoma
- Lines: 29
- Originator: usenet@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu
- Nntp-Posting-Host: kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu
-
- In article <4348@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
- |
- |>The xlc compiler is absolutely recalcitrant about accepting
- |>anything like " Window foo = NULL". But the X11 headers
- |>are full of stuff like "XtWindowOfObject(object) != NULL"
- |>which of course won't compile with the native compiler. We
- |>have to sprinkle our code with crap like "#ifdef IBM #undef XtIsRealized"
- |>and fix it.
- |>
- |>If IBM has a better compiler (I can't believe they compiled X with
- |>xlc) can a customer get it? Or does xlc have an undocumented
- |>"Stop behaving like turbo pascal" mode?
-
- A better compiler.? Don't blame
- IBM and their compiler for doing its job; you need to understand the
- nuances between K & R C, ANSI C, and the other mutations. xlc does
- what it is supposed to do. ANSI C has strict type checking
- if the compiler enforces it, which is the default for xlc.
- Read the file /usr/lpp/xlc/bin/README.xlc for more information
- on the compiler.
-
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Dwight D. Moore
- Geosciences Computing Network
- University of Oklahoma
-
- dwight@geohub.gcn.uoknor.edu (129.15.40.10)
- These opinions do not necessarily represent the opinions of OU or the GCN.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-