Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

On 16/03/2025 10:31, Mikko wrote:

False. You didn't say that HHH is a C function. In particular, the
code
shown above does not say so.

>
It scarcely qualifies as C.
>
For example, it begins by a goto this code:
>
__asm__("lea eax, DATA1");
  __asm__("mov Aborted, eax");
  __asm__("lea eax, DATA2");
  __asm__("mov execution_trace, eax");
  __asm__("mov eax, END_OF_CODE");
  __asm__("mov End_Of_Code, eax");
>
which any C compiler is free to reject.
>
C99 introduced the asm keyword, but that's spelled asm, not __asm__,
and of course it's not a magic wand, so it can't make an inherently
unportable program work on every platform supported by C
compilers. C/370, for example, would have a fit.

No, C99 didn't introduce the asm keyword.  Both C90 and C99 (and all
later editions) document the "asm" keyword as a common extension,
but it's not in the list of keywords.  K&R1 (1978) mentions that
some implementations reserve "fortran" and "asm".  A conforming C
compiler must accept "asm" as an ordinary identifier.

I don't think Olcott intends HHH to be fully portable C (assuming
he knows what that means).  In any case, his claims about "Every
sufficiently competent C programmer" are ludicrous.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */