Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:49:46 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 64 Message-ID: <87y299uis5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <87czqnlp2m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <877dgvljpf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2a1b4347-595a-469a-8df1-db64af9896acn@googlegroups.com> <94f47c65-5f5f-44d1-bc37-d51155624ae5n@googlegroups.com> <87y29afah5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87r1f2f7e1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87eeb1f9dg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4ba2c969ae0e906c6600fce7cdb6f53e"; logging-data="12658"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX191VLj6C9zpQz5cfoO8lSGU" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:h/rlU09cs4wcrl74A44a7POKbc8= sha1:hZytpUsOb/bv8Rye4Uz75Q3ybP4= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:162297 Bart writes: > On 10/08/2021 19:22, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Bart writes: >>> On 10/08/2021 01:52, Keith Thompson wrote: >> [...] >>>> You continue to pretend not to understand the distinction between a >>>> compiler and an implementation in a thread that demonstrates just how >>>> important that distinction is. >>> >>> I think the [sub-]thread demonstrates exactly the opposite! >>> >>> The fact is that, outside of Unix (and outside of compilers that >>> originated in Unix or Unix-like systems, or that try and emulate >>> those) a compiler is a whole package. >> You use TDM-GCC. Yes, it's a "whole package" by the time you >> download >> it, but it was assembled from independent components. > > How many different ones are there (I mean as downloadable, assembled, > complete products for other people to use) for plain Windows, and how > do they differ? > > gcc itself probably consists of lots of different components too, > written by 100s of people; where does it end? Explaining this to you is obviously a waste of time. [...] >>> And outside of C, that is generally the case too. >>> >>> Actually, try and do something different, like compiling this program: >>> >>> extern int printf(intptr_t); >>> >>> then gcc/tdm will complain that it it does match what it expects for >>> the BUILT-IN function 'printf'. >> Yes, because it knows what the standard guarantees for the printf >> function, not because it knows anything about a particular library >> implementation. >> >>> I am just NOT INTERESTED in the 'distinction'. >> You're interested enough to argue about it every time someone >> mentions >> it. > > Every time someone moans about my casually saying 'gcc' when I mean > the entire bundle for plain Windows. Yes, because you complain about 'gcc" not implementing printf correctly. Again, I'm not going to explain again why that's misleading. > (I've even had to start saying 'plain Windows' now because nobody here > seems capable of using it without doing it through Cygwin or MSYS2 or > WSL.) I usually use Cygwin myself. Of course poeple are going to use examples they're familiar with. I am obviously capable of using "plain Windows", since I discussed doing so just recently. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */