Re: Compiling lposix.c (patch)

[Rici Lake <lua@...>]

On 5-Oct-06, at 2:32 PM, David Jones wrote:

> Personally the more I look at more standards the more I see them 
> becoming less and less relevant.  As you point out, you would be, 
> let's say adventurous, to start making a widely deployed C program 
> that relied on ISO 9899:1999 features (or even 9899:1995 features come 
> to that).

That's really sad, isn't it? What's the point of having all those nice 
features if we can't use them?

It's not like 1999 was yesterday. After seven years, you'd expect 
implementations to catch up :) gcc, at least, implements most, if not 
all, of iso 9899:1999.

> I once had the pleasure of porting code to a system that was nearly 
> that bad.  7 characters were significant in external identifiers.  Not 
> case sensitive mind.

That wouldn't have been an old 36-bit architecture, would it? I 
remember the PDP-6/10 "squoze" character encoding, which relied on the 
fact that 26*37^6 is just under 2^36