beierl_c@apollo.COM (Christopher Beierl) (06/02/89)
I obtained the following updates to K&R 2 on a Xeroxed sheet at my
local bookstore. I trust Brian and Dennis won't mind my posting it here.
-Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to _The_C_Programming_Language,_2nd_Edition_
Now that X3J11 has voted to send its draft to X3, and further substantive
changes in the draft standard are unlikely, Brian and I are preparing fixes
to put in any future printings of the second edition of _The_C_Programming_
Language_. Fortunately, they are minor. For the benefit of previous and
near-future purchasers, here are the changes that were made:
Two or three sentences in the Preface and Introduction are updated to de-
scribe the state of the Standard.
Minor typos are corrected on pages 87, 89, 164, 165, 168, 180; also 71, 76,
82, 121 atof is in <stdlib.h>, not <math.h>.
The inconspicuous references to noalias on pages 192 and 211 are removed.
The following paragraph is added to the end of section A6.6 (p 199):
A pointer may be converted to another pointer whose type is the same
except for the addition or removal of qualifiers (A4.4, A8.2) of the
object type to which the pointer refers. If qualifiers are added, the
new pointer is equivalent to the old except for restrictions implied
by the new qualifiers. If qualifiers are removed, operations on the
underlying object remain subject to the qualifiers in its actual
declaration.
On p.199, beginning of section A6.8, "Any pointer may be converted to type
void *..." is changed to "Any pointer >to an object< may be converted to
type void*...".
On p.204, A7.4.4, "The operand of the unary + operator must have arithmetic
or pointer type..." should read "must have arithmetic type...".
On p.206, A7.9, about relational operators: "Pointers to objects of the
same type may be compared..." is changed to "Pointers to objects of the
same type >(ignoring qualifiers)< may be compared...".
The indented material on p.209, "According to the restrictions... relaxing
it." is removed. [This is related to the paragraph added above. The
wording of the draft of a year ago made it useless to take an (int *)
pointer, cast it to (const int *), then cast it back to (int *).]
On p.219 middle, initialization of structures, add "Unnamed bit-field
members are ignored, and are not initialized."
Appendix B changes:
p 242: Add "fflush(NULL) flushes all output streams." to fflush description.
p 243: Change to "it must be called before reading, writing >or any other
operation<" in setvbuf description.
p 249: Add "Comparison functions treat arguments as unsigned char arrays."
to <string.h> description.
p 255: Change range of tm_sec to (0,61) for leap seconds.
p 255: Change CLK_TCK to CLOCKS_PER_SEC.
p 257: Drop U and L suffixes from <limits.h> constants. tm_sec range is
(00,61) here too.
Appendix C changes:
p 261: Change "External declarations without any specifiers..." to "External
>data< declarations without any specifiers...".
The index has been reprinted to fix a couple of typos and account for motion
within Appendix A; one page of the table of contents is changed.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christopher T. Beierl Internet: beierl_c@apollo.com
Apollo Computer, Inc. UUCP: {mit-eddie,yale,uw-beaver}!apollo!beierl_c
A Subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard Phone: (508) 256-6600dbrooks@osf.OSF.ORG (David Brooks) (06/04/89)
In article <4392e156.19050@apollo.COM> beierl_c@apollo.COM (Christopher Beierl) writes: > > I obtained the following updates to K&R 2 on a Xeroxed sheet at my >local bookstore. I trust Brian and Dennis won't mind my posting it here. > -Chris Thankyou from the rest of the world for doing this, anyway! >The inconspicuous references to noalias on pages 192 and 211 are removed. ^^^ 212 >p 255: Change range of tm_sec to (0,61) for leap seconds. > >p 257: Drop U and L suffixes from <limits.h> constants. tm_sec range is >(00,61) here too. I thought that only one leap second would be added at a time (only one per minute, at any rate). Shouldn't these be (0,60), then? -- David Brooks dbrooks@osf.org Open Software Foundation uunet!osf.org!dbrooks 11 Cambridge Center Personal views, not necessarily those Cambridge, MA 02142, USA of OSF, its sponsors or members.
dmr@alice.UUCP (06/05/89)
I was a bit surprised to see Chris Beierl's posting of the errata for K&R second edition. More accurately, I was surprised to hear that it was present in his copy of the book, since it was prepared for posting to this group. We thought we gave it to our editor at Prentice-Hall for his information; he didn't tell us that it was to be included as an errata list, or even let us know that this was possible. We would have worded it a bit differently. In any event, here is what we have now. All of these changes should be in the second printing. The main difference between this and what Beierl posted is the addition of the statement about initialization of automatic arrays on p. 86. [Incidentally, the range of tm_sec is really 0 through 61. It seems that two consecutive leap seconds are permitted.] Dennis Ritchie dmr@research.att.com att!research!dmr --------- Now that X3J11 has voted to send its draft to X3, and further substantive changes in the draft standard are unlikely, Brian and I are preparing fixes to put in any future printings of the second edition of "The C Programming Language." Fortunately, they are minor. For the benefit of previous and near-future purchasers, here are the changes that were made: Two or three sentences in the Preface and Introduction are updated to describe the state of the Standard. atof is in stdlib.h, not math.h: changes 71, 76, 82, 121. On page 86, error corrected: missing automatic array initializers are zero too. On page 168: changed 1 to 1.0 in frand() to avoid potential overflow. Minor typos are corrected on pages 87, 89, 164, 165, 180. The inconspicuous references to 'noalias' on pages 192 and 212 are removed. The following paragraph is added to the end of section A6.6 (p 199): A pointer may be converted to another pointer whose type is the same except for the addition or removal of qualifiers (A4.4, A8.2) of the object type to which the pointer refers. If qualifiers are added, the new pointer is equivalent to the old except for restrictions implied by the new qualifiers. If qualifiers are removed, operations on the underlying object remain subject to the qualifiers in its actual declaration. On p. 199, beginning of section A6.8, "Any pointer may be converted to type void *..." is changed to "Any pointer >to an object< may be converted to type void *...". On p. 204, A7.4.4, "The operand of the unary + operator must have arithmetic or pointer type..." should read "must have arithmetic type...". On p. 206, A7.9, about relational operators: "Pointers to objects of the same type may be compared..." is changed to "Pointers to object of the same type >(ignoring any qualifiers)< may be compared...". The indented material on p. 209, "According to the restrictions... relaxing it." is removed. [This is related to the paragraph added above. The wording of the draft of a year ago made it useless to take an (int *) pointer, cast it to (const int *), then cast it back to (int *).] On p. 219 middle, initialization of structures, add "Unnamed bit-field members are ignored, and are not initialized." Appendix B changes: p 242: add "fflush(NULL) flushes all output streams." to fflush description. p 243: change to "it must be called before reading, writing >or any other operation<" in setvbuf description. p 249: add "Comparison functions treat arguments as unsigned char arrays." to string.h description. p 255: change range of tm_sec to (0,61) for leap seconds. CLK_TCK was changed late (12/15/88) to CLOCKS_PER_SEC. p 257: drop U and L suffixes from <limits.h> constants. tm_sec range (00,61) here too. Appendix C change: p 261: Change "External declarations without any specifiers..." to "External >data< declarations without any specifiers...". The index has been reprinted to fix a couple of typos and account for motion within Appendix A; one page of the table of contents is changed.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (06/05/89)
In article <1110@osf.OSF.ORG> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes: >I thought that only one leap second would be added at a time (only one >per minute, at any rate). Shouldn't these be (0,60), then? It may well be that (0,60) is always sufficient, but the standard allows for (0,61). X3J11 received conflicting information about this. We settled on (0,61) as being a sufficiently large range to accommodate the number of seconds no matter what the situation actually turned out to be.
frank@zen.co.uk (Frank Wales) (06/07/89)
In article <10360@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1110@osf.OSF.ORG> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes: >>I thought that only one leap second would be added at a time (only one >>per minute, at any rate). Shouldn't these be (0,60), then? >It may well be that (0,60) is always sufficient, but the standard allows >for (0,61). X3J11 received conflicting information about this. I seem to remember that a couple of years ago, the occasional end-of-year correction was two leap seconds, and this was mentioned in some science-type rag (Omni, I think) as being exceptional, but not unprecedented. So the 0..61 range would seem justified. -- Frank Wales, Systems Manager, [frank@zen.co.uk<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!frank] Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x217