[TUHS] Re: Any UNIX With No C In Userland?

At Mon, 3 Mar 2025 22:31:13 +1100, Peter Yardley <peter.martin.yardley(a)gmail.com> wrote: Subject: [TUHS] Re: Any UNIX With No C In Userland? That might be true for some nit-pick-ity "Standard C", but it isn't true for most real implementations, at least in the realm of 'hosted' implementations. Real implementations do after all have to interface with real hardware. In fact it's not impossible, or even really hard, to define a struct, even with bitfields, that can be "portably" compiled for a number of different architectures and platforms, including with different word sizes and endianness and which will map directly onto an external binary data representation. It can get a bit ugly to look at, but it works. Between the compiler manual and the ABI manual it _should_ all be quite clear how to do it. Of course "Standard C" has only got worse as it has morphed along the way, growing increasingly thorny with more instead of less "Undefined Behaviour". -- Greg A. Woods <gwoods(a)acm.org> Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <woods(a)robohack.ca> Planix, Inc. <woods(a)planix.com> Avoncote Farms <woods(a)avoncote.ca>