I also failed to find more details about the actual bugs, unless that is implicit in the style advice. Too bad, since actual detailed descriptions of bugs with reasoning about why they occured is usually quite interesting (and I'm always amazed by people who manage to keep notes about such).

The author says in the article that the style site is "unpublished", since the advice is too low-level and outdated. I actually think much of the very basic C advice is still sound and would agree with most of it, but it was kind of jarring when it jumped into "cute tricks", including Duff's device.

I have programmed in C for 25+ years, and have never used Duff's device in anger. While I could have used this guide in 1994 for the basic hints about good C, today I would be very sceptical reviewing code using Duff's device. :)