Re: diagnosing C errors, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux?

From	Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: diagnosing C errors, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux?
Date	2016-09-10 00:38 +0200
Organization	Compilers Central
Message-ID	<16-09-024@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	<16-09-001@comp.compilers> <16-09-002@comp.compilers> <16-09-008@comp.compilers> <16-09-019@comp.compilers>

Show all headers | View raw

BartC schrieb:

> For example, take a pointer to an array of ints, P. You'd normally
> access an int by dereferencing P then applying the index: (*P)[i].
>
> But if, by mistake, you index first then dereference: *(P[i]), then this
> still compiles. But is likely to go wrong badly.

AFAIR (according to K&R) p[i] is equivalent to *(p+i), only a different
syntax for the same semantics. In contrast to C++ the C language doesn't
include arrays as special types, proper usage is up to the coder.

> By contrast, an inadvertent duplicate case label is a 'soft' error; the
> program just won't give the expected results. It's not going to read or
> write all over memory it shouldn't, or at least not as directly as will
> happen if the compiler blatantly allows pointers (to single targets) and
> arrays to be interchanged.

A C switch statement can be translated in various ways, depending on
the sparseness of the values and other conditions. A good compiler
choses the most efficient model for every single statement. At least
the linker should bark on duplicate compiler-generated labels.


Some more thoughts:

I'd think that everybody in this thread should specify the C standard
he relies on. There is a broad range from K&R to C99, or whatever is
the current Ansi standard. But I guess none of the contributors ever
spent the money and time to read a standard, where many "undefined"
and "compiler specific" cases are described in detail. It's a bad idea
to rely on the (mis)behaviour of some specific compiler, in a
discussion about the semantics of the C language.


In former times it was common practice to use multiple C compilers, one
for good diagnostics, one for good debugging features, and one for most
efficient executable code. At that time the Watcom compiler was said to
be the most reliable compiler, dunno about todays version (Open Watcom).

The old Microsoft compilers were poor in diagnostics and efficiency,
every official sample program contained more than 50 bugs and flaws,
which were found by the Borland (BC...) compiler after removing excess
(almost wrong) type casts. But it's not the compiler to blame, instead
it's the coder that disallows the compiler to perform essential checks,
and disables or ignores compiler warnings. It's bad practice to force
the compiler to accept some code, with the poor excuse "else it doesn't
do what I want". Who wants better diagnostics should consider to use C++
instead of C, and make use of the improved syntax to let the compiler
perform more checks.

Even newer MS compilers tend to follow their own language definition,
not any Ansi standard. Other compilers, like gcc, allow to specify the
standard to apply, eventually to enable/disable compiler specific
extensions of the language. Any statement about compiler specific
behaviour is meaningless without the specification of the compiler and
option settings.

DoDi

Thread

Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-02 03:01 +0000
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-09-05 00:20 +0200
    Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? alexfrunews@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 17:26 -0700
      Re: diagnosing C errors, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-09 12:31 +0100
        Re: diagnosing C errors, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-09 16:06 +0000
        Re: diagnosing C errors, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2016-09-10 00:38 +0200
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Nemo <nemo@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-04 18:32 -0400
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-04 23:48 +0000
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-05 13:19 +0100
    Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-06 02:15 +0000
      Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-06 21:35 +0100
        Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-08 11:58 -0400
          Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-08 22:54 +0000
            Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-09 00:51 -0400
              Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-09 06:05 +0000
                Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-09 14:02 -0400
                Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-09 19:57 +0000
      Re: duplicate cases, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2016-09-07 17:01 +0100
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2016-09-05 20:06 +0200
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? alexfrunews@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 17:22 -0700
    Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-06 02:18 +0000
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? rockbrentwood@gmail.com - 2016-09-07 17:00 -0700
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-12 18:42 +0000
    Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-12 22:37 +0100
      Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-13 17:35 +0000
        Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-14 18:14 +0000
  Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? rugxulo@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 15:29 -0700
    Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-27 05:40 +0000
      Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? rugxulo@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 16:36 -0700
        Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-28 18:16 +0100
          Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-29 14:03 +0100
            Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-29 22:57 -0400
            Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2016-09-30 05:03 +0200
              Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-30 12:00 +0100
                Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2016-09-30 20:15 +0200
                Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-01 22:17 +0100
            Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-30 12:28 +0100
              Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 22:49 +0100
        Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-28 21:24 -0400
      Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-28 01:01 -0400
        Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-29 02:55 +0000
      Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com - 2016-09-29 05:30 -0600
        Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-30 10:13 +0000

csiph-web