Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data
Date	2017-06-15 16:13 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<ohu4ev$ef4$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <2Ck0B.72727$O06.58650@fx43.am4> <ohtgac$ch2$1@dont-email.me> <1Ps0B.155401$m76.34278@fx35.am4> <ohtq14$b41$1@dont-email.me> <4pv0B.20170$Oz1.7806@fx34.am4>

Show all headers | View raw

On 15/06/17 14:51, bartc wrote:
> On 15/06/2017 12:15, David Brown wrote:
>> On 15/06/17 11:54, bartc wrote:
> 
>> gcc changed to a default of "gnu11" rather than "gnu89" with version 5
>> released about 2 years ago.
> 
> In 2015? OK....
> 

I guess you still don't understand what "backwards compatibility" means,
or why C (and C compilers) change slowly.

> 
>>> BTW I don't actually know how to tell any C compiler how to support a
>>> modern mode, except for gcc.
>>
>> Here's an idea.  You could see if the compilers have a /manual/, or some
>> sort of documentation.  Maybe that will tell you?
> 
> Read my post. I checked the displayed options of all compilers except
> for lccwin64.
> 
>> As an alternative, you could also try a web search.
>>
>> Or, of course, you could boast about your wilful ignorance in a public
>> newsgroup.
> 
> I shouldn't need to search the web to find out how to goad a compiler
> into doing its job properly.
> 

Yes, why try to read manuals or search for information when you can use
a random "try it and see" approach, followed by loud complaints in an
inappropriate place when something doesn't match /your/ idea of "obvious".

>> I suggest you learn to use your compilers, and also that you learn what
>> compilers actually /do/ and what they are used for.
> 
>> There is no point in anyone giving you suggestions of flags here - it
>> has been done before, and you will ignore them or forget them within
>> seconds.
> 
>>>
>>> With Tiny C, it doesn't appear to have such an option. That said nothing
>>> at all.
>>
>> Hey, imagine that - a C compiler that is designed to be as small and
>> simple as possible has fewer features than a big and comprehensive one.
> 
> Which, funnily enough, gives the same results as the big and
> comprehensive one.

Except that it doesn't, according to your own tests.  And it does not
have the options to change that - again, according to your own tests.

> 
>>> With DMC, I couldn't see such an option either (only -A for strict
>>> ANSI). That's quite an old compiler, but still released 5 years after
>>> 1999. That said nothing at all about this code.
>>>
>>> With Pelles C, it's /std:{C11}, but it says that is the default mode.
>>> Yet it gives only warnings.
>>>
>>> With lccwin64, I couldn't figure out how to show all the options. With
>>> lccwin32, there is an option -ansic90 which disables C99, so it sounds
>>> like the latter is already the default. Yet it still gives warnings
>>> only.
>>>
>>> With MSVC, I can only use that from inside Visual Studio, so don't want
>>> to spend all morning figuring what the options are and how to set them.
>>> But I would be surprised if such a modern compiler (used from VS2017)
>>> disabled C99 and C11 features.
>>
>> Yes, MSVC is famous for its solid and timely support for C99 and C11.
>> /Really/ famous.
> 
> You're starting to take the piss now.
> 

Well spotted.

> Give me an example of a freely available C compiler (other than DMC
> which is the only line that notices the mismatched arguments), which out
> of the box and with default options, diagnoses:
> 
>   randommadeupfunction(1,2,3,"blah");
>   randommadeupfunction(1e37);
> 
> as an error. And tell me how to get all the compilers I've mentioned -
> apart from Tiny C and DMC - to report that as error.
> 

No - do your own homework and find which compilers can be set to give an
error here.  I know how to use the compilers /I/ use, and all the
compilers I use regularly will give errors here with the settings /I/
use.  I haven't the slightest interest in investigating some irrelevant
little windows-only decades old compiler just because /you/ seem to
think it is important enough to post about it here, yet not important
enough to learn about or to contact the author about problems or missing
features.

> Or is it too much effort? If so, that is exactly the problem. They
> should just work.

No, it would not be too much effort for the compilers I use.  But I have
no interest in helping you here - experience has shown you to be
ungrateful and wilfully ignorant.  You will just weep dramatically about
how hard this all is for a simple user, then in a couple of weeks you
will complain about it again in a new thread and ask for the same help.

> 
> According to you, it is all MY fault:

It is /your/ fault if you haven't read the manual or done the web search
to see if a particular compiler supports a feature you want.  It is
/your/ fault if you expect an ancient little toy tool to support an
optional feature, or comprehensive warnings.  It is /your/ fault if you
expect a compiler to stick strictly to a particular C standard without
asking it to, or if you expect a very limited compiler to be fully
conforming.  It is /your/ fault if you expect to learn about what the
standard says by trial and error with a random collection of compilers
of variable quality, and consider them equally weighted.  It is /your/
fault if you complain about missing features or incompatibilities in
tools here, rather than in a manner appropriate for the tool in question.

> 
> * That Tiny C is so limited

It is /your/ fault if you take a compiler that is specifically designed
to be as small as possible, and you get upset because it is limited.

> 
> * That the massive MSVC is so limited

It is /your/ fault if you expect MSVC to be good for C standards,
warnings, features and compatibility - everyone and his dog knows MSVC
is poor at C.  /MS/ knows so too, which is why they have moved to using
clang for C.  MSVC concentrates on C++ features, not C.

And it is /your/ fault if you don't know how to use the compiler and its
options, or don't know how to use it from the command line instead of
the IDE.

> 
> * That gcc doesn't do these checks by default and that EVERYBODY who
> uses gcc (not just me) has to browse 1200 different options to find the
> one that will turn this check on. You're also assume that everybody
> KNOWS about all the errors that a compiler will just let through unless
> prodded to report them properly.

No, a great many people who use gcc find no problem in getting the most
useful common options for it.  And a great many people who use gcc do so
without invoking the compiler directly from the command line - they use
an IDE with convenient checkboxes for the common options, or Makefiles
with common options picked.  And most people who are capable of
programming in C are also capable of googling for "common gcc options"
or "gcc getting started" or "gcc tutorial".

> 
> Sorry, but you're getting close to personal insults.

I am sorry, but I believe I have stepped over that line - but I hope you
see it as constructive criticism.  You are making a complete fool of
yourself.

> 
> From what I can see, this is an endemic problem with C and with C
> compilers, in carrying over sloppy standards from the last century into
> this one. You CANNOT put the blame on an individual.

There is plenty wrong - or at least suboptimal - with C, C compilers, C
programmers and the way C is used.  And certainly there are plenty of
things about the way C works that you would not do in a new, modern
language.  But as usual you are inventing new issues that are /not/ real
problems - or at least, not important or serious problems.  Only /you/
have these sorts of troubles, and they are mostly self-inflicted.

The thing I cannot comprehend at all, is why you use C in the first
place.  You clearly hate the language, you clearly hate the tools.  You
are clearly incapable of using it properly, and totally resistant to
learning it.  There are endless numbers of programming languages to
choose from - surely you can find one that you like.

> 
> Compilers should report errors by default, not let errors through by
> default.
> 

I would prefer my compilers to treat potential errors more seriously by
default - but then folks like Supercat would get his knickers in a twist
when the compiler tried to stop his code that he thinks used to be
valid, and which still works in the compiler's /default/ mode.
Backwards compatibility is king in the world of C.

And I have no problem writing "-Wall -Werror" in my Makefiles, so the
default settings don't affect me.

Thread

Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 06:14 -0700
  Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 06:18 -0700
    Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 08:00 -0700
      Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 08:06 -0700
    Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-14 20:39 +0100
      Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-14 21:51 +0100
        Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-14 22:25 +0100
          Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-14 14:37 -0700
            Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-15 00:32 +0100
              Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-14 17:02 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-15 01:34 +0100
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-14 20:28 -0500
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-18 10:49 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-14 20:02 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-15 10:29 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-15 10:54 +0100
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-15 13:15 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-15 13:51 +0100
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-15 16:13 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-15 16:01 +0100
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-15 09:27 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-18 10:49 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-16 23:35 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-17 16:10 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-17 19:23 -0700
              Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-16 13:13 +1200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 18:44 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-16 13:42 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 20:20 +0100
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-18 00:32 -0500
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-18 11:06 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-18 15:26 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-18 14:58 +0100
          Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-15 01:42 +0100
            Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-15 11:52 +0100
              Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-15 16:07 +0100
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-16 23:37 -0700
              Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-15 09:52 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 10:36 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-15 17:58 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 11:48 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-15 19:01 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 12:29 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-16 13:47 +1200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 19:33 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 13:02 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 13:09 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-15 22:25 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 14:23 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-15 23:53 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 15:39 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-16 13:50 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-16 08:40 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-18 16:49 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-19 10:33 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-19 17:50 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-19 12:12 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-19 19:27 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-06-20 15:18 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-20 09:30 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 12:05 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-16 12:30 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-18 16:54 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-19 13:25 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-20 09:27 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-20 08:53 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-20 22:12 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-06-20 13:14 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-06-20 13:16 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-20 14:04 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-21 15:33 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-20 13:25 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-16 19:42 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-18 16:58 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-17 19:18 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-15 23:40 -0500
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-16 13:51 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-16 12:55 +0000
      Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 14:23 -0700
        Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-16 13:48 +1200
          Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 19:03 -0700
            Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-16 15:12 +1200
              Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 20:20 -0700
              Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-06-16 07:03 +0100
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-16 20:01 +1200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-06-16 19:21 +0100
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-06-16 12:07 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-17 16:18 +1200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-06-17 07:19 +0100
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-17 19:19 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-18 08:29 +1200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-17 18:49 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-18 16:18 +1200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2017-06-18 06:28 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-16 09:11 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-16 23:37 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-18 17:04 +0200
            Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-16 12:56 +0000
              Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 07:10 -0700
              Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 16:38 +0200
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-16 15:02 +0000
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 08:11 -0700
                Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-18 17:13 +0200
      Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-14 14:42 -0700
  Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-14 21:32 +0100
    Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 14:28 -0700

csiph-web