On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 09:17:11AM -0400, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> > Now, as of yesterday, it compiled cleanly on i386. Why the compiler detects
> > some things on other architectures that it happily accepts on i386 is a
> > mystery to me.
> 
> Not to me :-)
> 
> 	fprintf(output, s[0] == '/' && s[1] == '*' ? "\t%.*s" : "\t/* %.*s */",
> 		e_lab - s, s);
> 
> e_lab and s are both char *; their difference has an
> implementation-defined type which is clearly "int" on x86, and "long"
> on sparc.

*sigh*. Ok, I'll add the type cast.

> This was not caught before because the compiler didn't know how to
> grovel around in the ?: expression to find the format string..

\begin{dontlistentome}
We should rewrite the OS in some consistently defined strong typing language.
\end{dontlistentome}

Regards,
	-is