Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> See, now you're arguing in favor of standardization. I don't think I
> have to quote your arguments against it in their entirety to make a
> point :)

You have totally misunderstood what I previously said.  I never argued
against standardization.  I was objecting to your implicit and sometimes
overt characterization that people refusing to switch to standards now were
being stupid.  I tried to explain how we got here and that these descision
were largely reasonable, not that the outcome is necessarily desirable or
that standards are bad.

> I think the problem in this case is that C runs on so many different
> systems with so many different processor architectures that a tight
> specification of the startup code would make the standard startup code
> unsuitable for many applications -- which then might just result in more
> non-standard compilers rather than more similar compilers.

All I was suggesting was a syntax to define a GOTO entry point as apposed to
a CALL entry point.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist