Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows

On 16/03/2025 19:26, Keith Thompson wrote:

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.

You're right, of course. Refusing to trust my memory for post-1990 C, I checked by searching my PDF, found it, and forgot to check where I'd ended up (deep in the heart of "common extensions").

I don't think Olcott intends HHH to be fully portable C (assuming
he knows what that means).

That's a daring assumption.

In any case, his claims about "Every
sufficiently competent C programmer" are ludicrous.

I can remove almost half the words from that sentence without affecting its inherent accuracy.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within