From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9adfbb907494972e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,9adfbb907494972e
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
From: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk (Lawrence Kirby)
Subject: Re: Ada to C/C++ translator needed
Date: 1996/10/05
Message-ID: <844550221snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 187910431
x-nntp-posting-user: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
references: <32499FA0.4B5E@magic.fr> <52feul$os2@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <01bbad6e$67743f20$32ee6fcf@timhome2> <52o1ve$gra@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <52oorc$hid@solutions.solon.com> <52t8da$2ej@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
x-mail2news-path: news.demon.net!genesis.demon.co.uk
organization: none
reply-to: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <52t8da$2ej@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
           ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au "Richard A. O'Keefe" writes:

>seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) writes:
>
>>(However, if you're discussing SparcWorks C, you've failed to establish
>>that it's a C compiler.  A C compiler *MUST* diagnose the line
>>       static int i = 1 ? 1 : (++j);
>>as a constraint violation, but at least the version we have doesn't, even
>>in "maximally conforming ANSI mode".  Clearly, it is not a C compiler.)
>
>"gub.c", line 1: undefined symbol: j
>
>Looks like an error message to me.
>Oh, you wanted something _else_ in the program?
>
>Fair enough, given an appropriate declaration for j,
>this line gets through
>
>        SPARCompiler C, even with "-erroff=%none"
>        SPARCompiler Lint
>        LCLint          (shock horror; I have reported this as a bug)
>        lcc             (*published* as a C compiler!)
>                        (I have reported this as a bug too)
>        gcc -ansi -pedantic     (I'll let you report this one, seebs)
>
>Evidently, by your argument, I haven't _got_ any C compilers to test!

Possibly, but you haven't proved it. You have to consider 6.4:

"An implementation may accept other forms of constant expression"

However I would certainly expect a lint to flag it as non-portable.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------