Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.os2.programmer.misc > #239
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.unix.programmer, comp.lang.c, comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32, comp.os.os2.programmer.misc |
| Subject | Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? |
| Date | 2011-05-15 21:08 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <iqpteg$ba2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <c8e8e850-aa1a-4dd3-9f58-94ed708d25a8@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <iq50gu$46r$1@dont-email.me> <IU.D20110515.T160558.P4093.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> <iqp4od$1mk$1@dont-email.me> <IU.D20110515.T215017.P4453.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On 05/15/2011 05:49 PM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: ... > not be doing so. Nor would you be bringing up as problems things that > simply aren't the case outwith the narrow confines of Unix and Linux. "outwith" => "outside"? If it's a problem for any fully conforming versions of C, it's a problem my code should, ideally, be able to deal with properly, regardless of whether there's other fully conforming versions where it is not. > And indeed, I quote you from a couple of messages back: > >> My own programs are allowed to assume [...] a correspondingly early >> version of POSIX, [...] >> > There's that narrow horizon right there, in your very own words. What I'm allowed to assume for the project I'm working on, and what I'm willing to assume in general, are two very different things. Even on this particular project, my code actually relies very little upon that particular assumption. That's possible primarily because one of the third-party libraries I'm required to use hides a lot of the implementation-specific details within it's own code. Because there's no requirement that my code operate on non-POSIX platforms, I could not get permission to spend any significant amount of time making sure that it did; but if that requirement were changed, I doubt that my own code would require many fixes. A very small portion of my code relies upon the POSIX guarantee that CHAR_BITS==8; most of it is carefully written to avoid making that assumption. Those five programs rely upon that guarantee in order to parse some data structures. If I could no longer rely upon POSIX, that would be the most difficult part to fix. -- James Kuyper
Back to comp.os.os2.programmer.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-15 17:05 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-15 14:07 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-15 22:49 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-15 21:08 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-16 11:10 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org> - 2011-05-16 08:04 +0000
csiph-web