Re: UNCOL = Uncool?

vbdis@aol.com (VBDis)
26 Oct 2000 02:54:00 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? danwang+news@cs.princeton.edu (Daniel C. Wang) (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2000-10-26)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2000-10-26)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? predictor@my-deja.com (Pred.) (2000-10-26)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? vbdis@aol.com (2000-10-26)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2000-10-31)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2000-10-31)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? vbdis@aol.com (2000-11-04)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: vbdis@aol.com (VBDis)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 26 Oct 2000 02:54:00 -0400
Organization: AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG http://www.germany.aol.com
References: 00-10-178
Keywords: UNCOL

fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) schreibt:


>In theory the Win32 API could be implemented on other OSs too.


In how far do you think that API calls affect the platform
(in)dependeny of compilers? No C compiler has built-in facilities for
Win32 or other platforms. Support for specific platforms requires
additional libraries, maybe as macro or code libraries, which describe
the usable API functions. It's up to the programmer, which API library
(s)he wants to use.


DoDi
[Microsoft C most certainly has special features to deal with the clumsy
semantics of Win32 DLLs. -John]




Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.