Stan Sieler writes:
>> I'm encountering a strange problem calling the system intrinsic
HPCIGETVAR
>> from within a "C" program compiled with the gnu gcc compiler [2.95.2]
The

>Although you have the answer now, I thought I'd point out several
>things (some about "CSEQ", some about "extensible")...

<snipped excellent example why one should really consider getting the
programming tool CSEQ if doing gcc work and using system intrinsics>

>The "extensible 14" (and this is where Bill should get interested)
..
>Now, as to "why should it be extensible 14 if you have to specify
>all 14 parameters"...that's actually two questions:
>
>   1) why extensible at all?
>
>      What happens if it weren't extensible, and someone wanted to add a
>      parmeter later?  Oops...can't do it!
>
>   2) Why "extensible 14" instead of, say, "extensible 4"?
>
>      Lack of code review :)

I think the answer here depends if you count dimpled parameters and/or
pregnant parameters.  According to the Supreme Programmers in Florida, one
must ascertain the will of the programmer to determine if a parameter should
count or not.  If the compiler cannot count the parameter, then the
programmer must do a hand count.  The Supreme  Programmers also decided that
the task scheduler cannot put an arbitrary time slice on the hand counting
of parameters, but all counting must be done before BQ starts.

Mark "You can tell we're entering the turkey holiday here in the States"
Wonsil