Re: Can an implementation ``pre-qualify'' a standard type?

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #3132

#3132

From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1991 14:46

11 lines
1035 bytes

In article <1991Jun10.232144.24618@twinsun.com> eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) writes:
>	typedef volatile int sig_atomic_t;
>...  Rumor has it that at least one would-be
>conforming implementation does this to head off common programming errors.

That would not be a conforming implementation:
	(1) sig_atomic_t is required to be an "integral type", which is a
	technical term defined only as an unqualified type.
	(2) "volatile sig_atomic_t" is explicitly required to be supported,
	and if the typedef includes volatile qualification then the usage
	would violate a constraint in section 3.5.3 (X3.159-1989).

Technical Details

Message-ID: <16385@smoke.brl.mil>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn

References: <1991Jun10.232144.24618@twinsun.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Can an implementation ``pre-qualify'' a standard type?
Message-ID: <16385@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 11 Jun 91 14:46:23 GMT
References: <1991Jun10.232144.24618@twinsun.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 11

Reply to Parent Message