Article View: comp.std.c
Article #5163Re: nonportable code or incorrect compilers?
From: Paul Gomme
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1988 20:58
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1988 20:58
25 lines
1241 bytes
1241 bytes
In article <133@daitc.ARPA>, jkrueger@daitc.ARPA (Jonathan Krueger) writes:
> Here's a question of portability and language standards that came up in
> a real life program. According to K&R or ANSI, predict the output of
> the following code:
>
> #define DEFCONST 1.05
> main()
> {
> int count = 800;
>
> printf("count is %d, ", count);
> count *= DEFCONST;
> printf("now %d\n", count);
> }
>
> My prediction, based on K&R, was the output:
> count is 800, now 839
> Indeed, the Pyramid 98x produces exactly this output.
> But your mileage may vary. 4.2BSD VAX, Gould, and Sun-3 produce output:
> count is 800, now 800
> Which brings me to the question: is this code non-portable, or do
> three out of four compilers surveyed fail to correctly implement K&R?
Just to stir things up a little, under VAX/VMS, I get an answer
of 839; Turbo C gives an answer of 840!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<430@uwovax.uwo.ca>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!julian!uwovax!16012_3045References:
<133@daitc.ARPA>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!julian!uwovax!16012_3045 From: 16012_3045@uwovax.uwo.ca (Paul Gomme) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: nonportable code or incorrect compilers? Message-ID: <430@uwovax.uwo.ca> Date: 27 Jun 88 20:58:35 GMT References: <133@daitc.ARPA> Lines: 25 Organisation: University of Western Ontario, Canada