Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Is 'extern' necessary? Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:33:53 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="763370d301beff321540589ef6a00fd6"; logging-data="5182"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dt0ifiwIb0qDdJFsoSYaI" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:+HsMW4CqKh9Dq+lJnETyKwtM3PA= sha1:Oxh9TpO1K0F6fYFP1wbi1DThyH0= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:103915 BartC writes: > On 14/02/2017 16:51, Keith Thompson wrote: >> BartC writes: >>> On 14/02/2017 08:28, David Brown wrote: >> [...] >>>> Standard library code is part of the implementation. Even if it is >>>> developed separately from the compiler, it is still in close cooperation >>>> with the compiler. >>> >>> "The" compiler? I thought such libraries were completely independent >>> from any one compiler and were all interchangable? >> >> What gave you that idea? >> >>> Or you finally admitting that perhaps the MingW library /is/ really >>> designed to work with gcc? >> >> "finally admitting"? >> >> Of course it is. MinGW is an implementation that include gcc as its >> compiler. The library component of MinGW is, as far as I know, intended >> to work with gcc, and only with gcc. Has anyone claimed otherwise? > > I think so. I remember long threads with people telling me why it > makes perfect sense to have compiler installations that are only a > bare compiler without all the extra bits needed to compile Hello > World. > > But if MingW is designed to work only with gcc-for-Windows, and > gcc-for-Windows works best with MingW, and most people using > gcc-for-Windows end up with Mingw, then why split > gcc-for-Windows/Mingw into two parts? > > I think actually there were three parts. I don't know what was in the > third part; linkers and such? Whatever it was, the components are so > obviously designed to work together, then it would make sense for a > gcc-for-Windows installation to have everything people need to build C > applications. Bart, I've decided to cut back substantially on my followups to your posts. There are several errors in what you've just written. If you'd like me to discuss them, contact me by e-mail (I don't actively monitor this account so it might take a while before I see anything you send me). -- 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"