Re: [C--] difference between specification and code

 > Hi, I am writing some code to manipulate c-- and came across something
 > odd. I am trying to use the tiger compiler and the test cases of  qc--
 > as sample c-- files to test my code with and noticed that the import
 > statements used by qc-- and tigerc don't match the specification. in
 > particular, they seem to (sometimes) be of the form
 > 
 > import bits32 foo;
 > 
 > while the specification doesn't allow a type specification there. So, I
 > guess I am wondering which is correct, and how I should interpret that
 > type in the import statement for compatability?

The type in the import statement is a legacy feature.
It is deprecated.  (Imported symbols by their very nature
have the native pointer type.)


Norman
_______________________________________________
Cminusminus mailing list
[email protected]
https://cminusminus.org/mailman/listinfo/cminusminus