erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (02/07/88)
Just tried to compile some stuff I got from a friend. Low and behold, the unix-pc C compiler doesn't go past 8 characters in either a function or a varible name! What's da dang deal? For some strange reason I thought that maybe, just maybe, C compilers within USG and/or sysV would be a little more compatible than this. An 8 character limit? What is this, a step back towards 2 character varible names like in BASIC? Ranting over.. Seriously, though.. Is there any way to get around this? Any kludges, or preprocessors, or anything? -- "Occult symbols include ... the 'peace' symbol and the Jewish 'Star of David'" -- From the Back In Control Handbook Girls play with toys. Real women skate. -- Powell Peralta ad J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 -- "Occult symbols include ... the 'peace' symbol and the Jewish 'Star of David'" -- From the Back In Control Handbook Girls play with toys. Real women skate. -- Powell Peralta ad J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
daveb@llama.rtech.UUCP (Dave Brower) (02/09/88)
In article <380@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > >Just tried to compile some stuff I got from a friend. Low and >behold, the unix-pc C compiler doesn't go past 8 characters in >either a function or a varible name! > >What's da dang deal? For some strange reason I thought that maybe, >just maybe, C compilers within USG and/or sysV would be a little >more compatible than this. > >An 8 character limit? What is this, a step back towards 2 character >varible names like in BASIC? You are running the 2.0 or 3.0 compiler. It supports long names in 3.5 and 3.51. Basically, you are SOL unless you want to go through contortions redefining shorter names. -dB "People will do anything for a potato." {amdahl, cpsc6a, mtxinu, ptsfa, sun, hoptoad}!rtech!daveb daveb@rtech.uucp
pjc@pcbox.UUCP (Paul J. Condie) (02/09/88)
In article <380@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: >behold, the unix-pc C compiler doesn't go past 8 characters in >either a function or a varible name! >An 8 character limit? What is this, a step back towards 2 character >varible names like in BASIC? >Ranting over.. Seriously, though.. Is there any way to get around this? >Any kludges, or preprocessors, or anything? The unix-pc compiler does by default support longer function/variable names, unless you use the -T option to truncate.
chute@chutepc.UUCP (Chris Chute MD) (02/10/88)
In article <385@pcbox.UUCP>, pjc@pcbox.UUCP (Paul J. Condie) writes: > In article <380@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > >behold, the unix-pc C compiler doesn't go past 8 characters in > >either a function or a varible name! [etc] > > The unix-pc compiler does by default support longer function/variable > names, unless you use the -T option to truncate. Now for those of us who suffered through version 2.0 and 3.0 of the UNIXpc System V, Eric's comments ring true. It was only with the advent of release 3.5 that full flex name support was available with the compiler (many of us had used a pre-preprocessor to get around it anyhow). How quickly we forget history. :-> Cheers, Chris Chute M.D. IntN: chute@hscfvax.harvard.edu Harvard School of Public Health UUCP: chute@chutepc.uucp Department of Epidemiology BitN: chute@harvspha.bitnet 677 Huntington Ave Voice: (617)732-1480 Boston, MA 02115 Data: (617)732-1843
andys@shlepper.ATT.COM (a.b.sherman) (02/10/88)
In article <380@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: | Just tried to compile some stuff I got from a friend. Low and | behold, the unix-pc C compiler doesn't go past 8 characters in | either a function or a varible name! | | What's da dang deal? For some strange reason I thought that maybe, | just maybe, C compilers within USG and/or sysV would be a little | more compatible than this. As of Release 3.51 full flexname support is provided in the stock compiler. If you don't have 3.51, get the flexnames C-preprocessor from the STORE!. It works. -- Andy Sherman / AT&T Bell Laboratories (Medical Diagnostic Systems) 480 Red Hill Road / Middletown NJ 07748 / (201) 615-5708 UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra,akgua,cbosgd,mtune....}!shlepper!andys INTERNET: andys@shlepper.ATT.COM
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (02/10/88)
A program "police" was posted to the net some months ago. It will
create new unique identifiers of any desired size.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesierict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (02/11/88)
In article <385@pcbox.UUCP>, pjc@pcbox.UUCP (Paul J. Condie) writes: > In article <380@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > >behold, the unix-pc C compiler doesn't go past 8 characters in > >either a function or a varible name! > >An 8 character limit? What is this, a step back towards 2 character > >varible names like in BASIC? > >Ranting over.. Seriously, though.. Is there any way to get around this? > >Any kludges, or preprocessors, or anything? > > The unix-pc compiler does by default support longer function/variable > names, unless you use the -T option to truncate. I think it by default supports on 3.51.. but not on 3.0 (which I may not have specified...) T h e s e a r e w a s t e -- Ratings stickers on music releases: Just Say "No". | Another journalist with If I wish really hard, will IBM go away forever? | too much computing power. Girls play with toys. Real women skate. -- Powell Peralta ad J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007