Re: [Tack-devel] K&R vs ANSI C

[Simon W. <ta...@rm...>]

I think half the point of ACK is that it can be compiled by itself.

My last problems with OSX compiling seems to stem from it not being 
able to link properly which is beyond my abilities to debug as I'm not 
that up to speed with developing on OSX (though I guess if I used a gnu 
binutils toolchain rather than using OSXs native mach-o linker I'd have 
better luck)

ho hum! :o)


On 23 Jul 2005, at 12:36, David Given wrote:

> Is there any real requirement these days for the ACK to be written 
> using K&R
> C?
>
> I ask because K&R C has a lot of very fuzzy semantics when it comes to
> imported and exported symbols, not to mention the lack of anything at 
> all
> resembling type safety, that I suspect is the cause of the
> not-compiling-on-OSX problem. Just clearing out all the more repulsive
> K&Risms (like arbitrarily importing symbols where you want them rather 
> than
> using headers) should sort a lot of this.
>
> I don't believe there are any K&R-only systems these days; every 
> platform I've
> tried the ACK on so far compiles it with an ANSI compiler, even Minix.
>
> -- 
> "Curses! Foiled by the chilled dairy treats of righteousness!" --- 
> Earthworm
> Jim (evil)