Re: ****tability: Harmony between PC and microcontroller

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
> [...] When I first started programming in C for
> embedded systems, I was weary of the compiler's compliance to the
> Standard. [...]

> The problem comes with writing ****table code.  [...]

     There seems to be a contradiction here.  If Compiler X and
Compiler Y are in effect their own Standards, how is writing
****table code made easier?

     Perhaps you don't recall the state of affairs before 1989,
but I do.  A degree of ****tability was possible, but even with
much labor one could not reached the levels of ****tability that
are achievable (with far less effort) today.  Some sprintf()
implementations returned a count, others returned a pointer.
Some compilers used <string.h>, others used <strings.h>.  Some
sup****ted struct-valued functions, some did not.  Some promoted
`unsigned char' to `int', some to `unsigned int'.  Some could
do token-pasting by eliminating /**/ in macro expansions, some
did not.  And so on, and so on -- a "****table" program in those
days was really a whole suite of related programs packed into
one set of source files and de-multiplexed with #ifdef.

     I for one found those days far more wearying than any of
the compromises a Standard requires of us.

> There's no reason why there has to be an "embedded version of C"
> distinct from "Standard C".

     It seems to me the distinction between "hosted" and
"free-standing" implementations is useful for the developers
of the latter.  Your toaster probably doesn't need complex
numbers, nor wcstomb(), nor setlocale(), nor exit(), and it
would be a hard****p for implementors if they had to provide
all this stuff that would never be used.

-- 
Eric.Sosman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]