Re: zsh and portability

[Zoltan Hidvegi <hzoli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> There been a lot of talk in the last couple of days about
> various assumptions that zsh makes (NULL has all zero bits,
> or char has 8 bits, etc..).
> 
> My suggestion would be to not worry too much about such things unless
> they become a problem.  I want zsh to be portable as well, but not at
> the expense of needlessly complicating the code for machines that zsh
> will probably not run on anyway.
> 
> In any portable unix software, you must make assumptions that are not
> guaranteed by any standard (ANSI C, POSIX, whatever).  I don't think
> anything is wrong with this (withing reason).  If the code is kept
> clean and well documented, and someone REALLY wants to run zsh on an
> OS that goes against these assumptions, then they could can port it
> themselves without too much trouble.
> 
> I think time could be better spent documenting the assumptions that
> are made, rather than adding more complexity in the name of
> portability.
> 
> Remember.  Keep things as simple as possible.  I will of course,
> repeat this mantra on a regular basis.

I agree, but if a change is simple and trivial, and improves portability
than it would be usefull to add.

Also I think that in the near future there will be systems where
sizeof(long) > sizeof(void*).  The other problems will probably not come up
on modern systems but this one has to be handled somehow.  In other words
we need a portable method to initialise a union.

Zoltan