Re: EXIT_SUCCESS guaranteed to always be zero?
From: Grumble (invalid_at_kma.eu.org)
Date: 11/27/03
- Next message: Thomas Stegen: "Re: [OT] Indian C programmers and "u""
- Previous message: Simon Biber: "Re: [OT] Indian C programmers and "u""
- In reply to: James Kuyper: "Re: EXIT_SUCCESS guaranteed to always be zero?"
- Next in thread: Tim Woodall: "Re: EXIT_SUCCESS guaranteed to always be zero?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 15:07:33 +0100
James Kuyper wrote:
> Implementation-defined is a subset of "unspecified". The alternatives
> for "unspecified" are not required to be "few", the only requirement is
> that there be at least two of them. In this case, EXIT_SUCCESS can be
> defined as expanding into any string of characters that constitutes an
> integer constant expression that can be safely converted to an int; the
> expression's value need not itself be within the valid range of an int.
> There is a discrete infinity of such expressions, which becomes finite,
> but still huge, if you put an upper limit on the length of that
> character string.
I think you should lay off the -pedantic flag for a while :-þ
- Next message: Thomas Stegen: "Re: [OT] Indian C programmers and "u""
- Previous message: Simon Biber: "Re: [OT] Indian C programmers and "u""
- In reply to: James Kuyper: "Re: EXIT_SUCCESS guaranteed to always be zero?"
- Next in thread: Tim Woodall: "Re: EXIT_SUCCESS guaranteed to always be zero?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|