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: 10a146,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk (Lawrence Kirby) Subject: Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1997/12/28 Message-ID: <883349549snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 310895189 References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <349B0417.D4DB6A30@its.cl> <67gvpa$m3t$1@brie.direct.ca> <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com> <882756127snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <67l6kk$m7k$1@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de> X-Mail2News-Path: genesis.demon.co.uk Reply-To: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Distribution: world X-Mail2News-User: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 883361676 3564 fred genesis.demon.co.uk Organization: none Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.ada,comp.edu Date: 1997-12-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <67l6kk$m7k$1@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de> watzka@stat.uni-muenchen.de "Kurt Watzka" writes: >fred@genesis.demon.co.uk (Lawrence Kirby) writes: > >>In article <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com> >> seebs@plethora.net "Peter Seebach" writes: > >>>In article , >>>William J. Leary Jr. wrote: >>>>Not that I've ever noticed. I frequently use C compilers to target embedded >>>>systems. >>> >>>Then you're using "freestanding environments", which are a separate language. >>>The library is, indeed, part of the hosted environment form of C. > >>Aren't the standard library identifiers with external linkage reserved >>even in a freestandinhg environment? > >How about "In a freestanding environment the name and type of the function >called at program startup are implementation-defined. There are otherwise >no reserved external identifiers". I read that as excluding the reservation >of external identifiers defined in the library clause in a freestanding >environment. What am I missing? Good question. I thought I remembered a discussion in comp.std.c that mentioned that there was a ruling about this and that the standard functions are in fact reserved. However as something a little more concrete I see that that last sentence has been removed from the C9X draft. -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com -----------------------------------------