On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 08:27:14PM +0100, Brian Foster wrote:
> 2nd pedantic quibble --- that is not a valid (as in standard
> conformat) definition of main(), albeit it does work in most
> (all?) *ix systems. from memory, the two valid forms are
> int main(void) and int main(int, char **) and equivalents.
> and NO, it is not true that foo() and foo(void) mean the
> same thing; in C, they do not. (b.t.w., the first form, foo(),
> is also deprecated.) see K&R-II, where that first form, foo(),
> is called ???old-style???.
Well, I didn't say that it was the same thing, I was talking about return
types. *scratches head*
> I have not read the patent in question, nor have I read this
> thread very closely. but it did strike me that all(?) of the
> code posted so far seems to assume a location in memory has
> exactly one address. i.e., the possibility of the memory
> being double-mapped (as one example, to two different virtual
> addresses in the same process) is not handled.
Hmmmmm, I'm not so certain a language-level operator could ever
genuinely cope with this, a system-call might be the only way. Unless
the language itself managed its own memory (ala Java) or simply
prevented double-mapping. It would be very interesting if MS's
operator did do this, because that really does give it some novel
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp at stdlib.net
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!