Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: "The long goodbye to C" by Eric Raymond Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 12:54:04 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <87tvxu18ff.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87shddyc78.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <4ccde6fc-1ced-4182-b92d-202fdf9fa55c@googlegroups.com> <5a8ad8da-ed89-437f-bf55-a3d00e1f7be8@googlegroups.com> <676b4762-9066-4744-b9f3-80ec5b97e019@googlegroups.com> <_vdQB.42382$X11.41767@fx20.am4> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e8b9a44fd308b1a9775c10fc093f5a67"; logging-data="21158"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18beRf24C5iiGZq8Ix9ygxJ" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:MsbfUoAwglVeCqvXYRkAA57GsIs= sha1:D6ULlkY/i8oPLTIAPU8WhyyssHQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:123005 bartc writes: > On 19/11/2017 19:57, Keith Thompson wrote: >> bartc writes: > >>> With the int omitted, no compiler gave an actual error, mostly warnings, >>> and one said nothing. (With the usual proviso that gcc can be made, if >>> you prime it correctly with the right instructions for How To Compile C >>> Source Code Properly, to give errors for anything). >> >> Please stop pretending not to understand that many C compilers are >> non-conforming by default. Please stop pretending not to understand >> that a non-fatal warning is a valid response to a syntax error or >> constraint violation. > > And please stop pretending that this makes a difference. > > Because the consequence is that people will use them in non-conforming > mode, ignore the warnings, if there are any at all, and end up writing > programs full of non-conforming code, which some of us end up having to > deal with. They will if they listen to you. You insist on harping about problems rather than offering solutions to them. I agree with you that C compilers printing non-fatal warnings for constraint violations is a problem. I personally would prefer compilers to work in conforming mode by default, but I can understand that others might have different preferences. I am mildly annoyed that there isn't a shorter and easier to remember synonym for "-std=c11 -pedantic-errors". Here's the difference. I offer advice for how to deal with it: don't ignore warnings, find out how to invoke your compiler in conforming mode. You merely complain, and you ignore all the workarounds because, apparently, they're too hard to remember. You complain about compilers not diagnosing errors without a hint of acknowledgement that there are ways to make them do so. You repeatedly write *as if* you didn't know any of this stuff, when you clearly do. C has problems, and you seem determined to give the false impression that nobody else acknowledges them. There are simple and effective ways to work around many of these problems, and you seem determined to give the false impression that these workarounds don't exist or are too difficult to use. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"