dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) (12/10/85)
We have an Altos 586 running Xenix 3.0. To us, the C compiler has some
rather unusual restrictions. Specificly, the following declarations are
NOT allowed:
long i; MUST be declared as "long int"
short int i; MUST be declared as "short"
unsigned long i; doesn't work at all
unsigned long int i; ditto
However both "unsigned i;" and "unsigned int i;" work OK. The compiler
error message from "short i;" is "Type clash" while the error message from
"long i;", "unsigned long i", etc. is "misplaced long".
Is this normal for Xenix C compilers, or is just the Altos funny?
--
David Hinnant
SCI Systems, Inc.
...{decvax, akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfhjsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (12/18/85)
In article <557@scirtp.UUCP> dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: >We have an Altos 586 running Xenix 3.0. ... > long i; MUST be declared as "long int" > short int i; MUST be declared as "short" > unsigned long i; doesn't work at all > unsigned long int i; ditto >However both "unsigned i;" and "unsigned int i;" work OK. The compiler >error message from "short i;" is "Type clash" while the error message from >"long i;", "unsigned long i", etc. is "misplaced long". Several early C compilers didn't allow unsigned longs, because it wasn't easy on their architectures. I auppose that's what's going on there. On the Altos 586 running Xenix 2.[35][abc] we had no problem with {long|short} [int] i; although since (again) early compilers treated long and short as qualifiers to the "real" data type I keep using "long int" and "short int". The fact that they seem to be treated opposite in your compiler must be a bug. Have you tried these all isolated, and with different variable names? -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}