Is this ok??
Pat Rankin
rankin at eql.caltech.edu
Fri Mar 8 14:02:34 AEST 1991
>In article <DAVIS.91Mar6213546 at pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> davis at pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (John E. Davis) writes:
> The following code works on sun4 and ultrix but crashes on VMS.
> Just when I thought I understood pointers.....
Your pointer usage looks correct. Are you using VAX C V3.0?
Its optimizer had some problems with inlining functions. Try using
``cc/nooptimize'' or ``cc/opt=noinline'', or upgrade to V3.1 (which
was released more than a year ago).
You should always retry with optimization suppressed when something
you're reasonably sure is correct gives the wrong results.
>In article <1991Mar7.173712.18201 at zoo.toronto.edu> henry at zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> My tentative diagnosis is that you understand pointers but don't understand
> VMS exit status! 0 is *not* "success" in VMS.
He would have hit that next. Even ``return EXIT_SUCCESS;'' wouldn't
help unless he defined EXIT_SUCCESS manually, because the the VAX C
version of <stdlib.h> currently has the wrong value for VMS (it's 0, when
VMS really does need 1 for success; it has 2 for EXIT_FAILURE, which is
suitable but not optimal).
In article <PJT.91Mar7191135 at dharma.cpac.washington.edu>, pjt at cpac.washington.edu (Larry Setlow) writes...
> I've redirected followups to comp.os.vms, since this line of
> discussion has become VMS-specific.
The question was about pointers, not about VMS. Exit status is a
red herring here. Known compiler problems are appropriate for this group,
as are suggestions to use EXIT_xx macros instead of hard coded exit values.
Pat Rankin, rankin at eql.caltech.edu
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list