blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson) (05/01/89)
In article <46500061@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >I want(ed) the ANSI C standard to REQUIRE >that one be able to access a given object as both data and code. >I am NOT - read my lips - referring to what is usually called >"self modifying code", but rather "incremental compilation". The ANSI C committe has no busniess trying to REQUIRE something that would REQUIRE modifacation of almost every operating system (ranging from changing speifactions to major redesigns) to be able to run ANSI C. This doesn't even touch the point that it has NO possible portable use, and is of questionable utility even on fixed platforms. >I would like to know why some designers would like to prohibit this. >I can not see ANY reason why it would be desirable to prevent it. As another feature, it would need to be tested and supported. This means it costs real money to people whether they have any use for it or not. Currently, almost any hardware CAN support this feature, (involves data copying in split I/D pdp11, etc) but few operating systems do explicity support it, so I recomend you try convincing OS designers (such as the posix committee) that the need for it outways its costs. After it is universilly implimented in all OSs, getting it in future language standards should be trivial. In the mean time, why don't you try something portable, like forking the existing program development tools to build a new program, then execute that. Bob Larson Arpa: Blarson@Ecla.Usc.Edu blarson@skat.usc.edu Uucp: {sdcrdcf,cit-vax}!oberon!skat!blarson Prime mailing list: info-prime-request%ais1@ecla.usc.edu oberon!ais1!info-prime-request