|
|
Richard Heathfield <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> CBFalconer said:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> CBFalconer said:
>>>> jacob navia wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> fp = GetFramePointer();
>>>>>
>>>>> And that is standard C.
>>>>
>>>> I think you had better return your C book, and your copy of the C
>>>> standard, for refunds. Someone has been passing off invalid copies
>>>> on you.
>>>
>>> Consider the following code:
>>>
>>> x = y();
>>>
>>> Is that standard C? If not, why not?
>>
>> IMO Not. Because the function y is not detailed.
>
> Please cite the section of the Standard that requires the source code of a
> called function to be present at compilation.
[...]
I suggest that this question cannot be resolved. The C standard does
not provide a definitive statement on whether a given chunk of code is
"standard C" or not. It does provide definitions of several levels of
conformance ("strictly conforming", "conforming", "correct program";
see C99 section 4), but no definition of the phrase "standard C".
And since the category of "conforming program" is so broad, it could
be argued that virtually anything is "standard C".
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <kst-u@xxxxxxx>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
|
|