Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 02:04:17 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG (freebsd-hackers) Cc: un_x@anchorage.net (Steve Howe) Subject: Re: Borland 16bit bcc vs cc/gcc (float) Message-ID: <19970601020417.FV62313@uriah.heep.sax.de> References: <19970531092837.DA51579@uriah.heep.sax.de> <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970531110640.5177A-100000@aak.anchorage.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Steve Howe wrote: > what's non-standard about long double? Nothing, i've been mistaken on this. > they're standard ANSI C types ... ? much of my software > relies on this precision - i can't do 64 bit int-to-string-to-int > conversions without them, ... Well, but ANSI says nothing about the actual precision. An implementation is allowed to represent float/double/long double all with 6 bytes, and would still be ANSI-compliant. It's merely an incident that most i386 implementations do long double as 80 bits, since this is the i387 `native' format. > ahhh! :) everyone says this - but exit() never returns, so main > never returns anything, so IMHO, main should always be type void. No. The compiler would even be allowed to throw your main() into the bit-bucket if you declare it to be `void'. And it's not too hypothetical that some architecture might have different calling conventions for functions returning int vs. functions returning void. main() returns an int _by definition_, that's nothing you could change. OTOH, you aren't required to call exit() explicitly, it's implicitly called by definition upon return from main() (and being passed the return value from main()). > please help me! :) Read Bruce's followup. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970601020417.FV62313>