Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) |
| Date | 2011-06-04 08:48 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <94svkrFbjiU11@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <cade1149-0858-4910-bf24-822af7e928ce@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com> <94qhgrFbjiU1@mid.individual.net> <d8ef521b-0d81-48a2-a9c7-b6d1a8b49c18@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <e55c4f7b-827b-4136-8d50-eeecb473c3c1@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> <5dfe258f-9f3f-4705-8d45-04590a9e7793@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com> |
On 06/ 4/11 07:13 AM, David Mathog wrote: > On Jun 3, 6:45 am, ImpalerCore<jadil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The same issue occurs with the Microsoft C Runtime and C99 printf >> support. You can compile 'printf( "%lu %zu\n", sizeof (int), sizeof >> (int) );' with gcc -std=c99 in the MinGW environment, but because it >> links in the Microsoft Runtime, the printf statement just generates "4 >> zu". Similar problems occur for modifiers 't' and 'll'. > > Which raises the question - why do we do that? Is there some reason > why the compilers never seem to supply the equivalent of libc? Probably to avoid chaos when the OS and application are linked to different version of libc! > Sure, > there are going to be instances where one can get away with using the > native OS libc, but clearly there are lots of other cases where it > doesn't work out so well. And I would wager it works out less and > less well as the target OS ages. Quite. That's why you run old code with old compilers on old OSs. If you want newer language features, use a newer OS. Whinging that an OS and compiler that are sufficiently old to be no longer supported don't do what you want is pointless. -- Ian Collins
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 13:52 -0700
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-02 22:16 +0100
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 14:18 -0700
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 14:37 -0700
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 09:59 +1200
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 15:18 -0700
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 10:35 +1200
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 16:01 -0700
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-06-03 06:45 -0700
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-03 12:13 -0700
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-03 21:35 +0200
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-04 08:48 +1200
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-03 23:28 +0100
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) gordonb.myhxj@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-04 00:32 -0500
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-04 08:06 +0200
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) gordonb.c5zg9@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-04 22:03 -0500
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-05 15:47 +1200
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-05 09:48 +0200
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-05 20:22 +1200
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-05 15:59 +0200
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 09:09 -0400
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-06 15:24 +0200
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 10:17 -0700
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 07:46 +1200
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-09 09:35 -0700
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-09 11:18 -0700
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-09 12:52 -0700
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-10 09:14 +1200
Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 16:04 -0700
csiph-web