Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #24707 > unrolled thread
| Started by | lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-22 10:34 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-08-27 22:41 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 192 — 45 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-22 10:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2012-08-22 19:50 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded fmassei@gmail.com - 2012-08-22 11:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 14:22 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-22 18:43 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 12:08 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-22 12:32 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-22 20:45 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-22 22:20 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 10:43 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:14 +0200
[OT] Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-23 13:27 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 22:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-22 13:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 00:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-23 00:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> - 2012-08-23 09:48 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-22 15:56 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 10:49 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 08:32 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 14:49 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-23 17:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded fmassei@gmail.com - 2012-08-23 08:43 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-23 17:52 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 18:41 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-23 17:42 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-23 17:43 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 18:54 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-24 09:51 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-24 06:21 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-03 16:55 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 13:36 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2012-08-27 06:05 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 12:56 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-29 21:10 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 18:37 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:15 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-24 09:52 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 07:51 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-26 23:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-22 17:43 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-08-23 20:17 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 15:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 17:53 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 19:02 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 20:53 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 21:33 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 11:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 08:04 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 21:08 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 21:37 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 15:13 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-23 10:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-23 13:00 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 06:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 09:06 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 11:31 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:45 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:16 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:37 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:40 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 15:01 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 22:03 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 17:11 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-26 11:46 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 03:07 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 12:22 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 09:35 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 17:28 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:00 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 14:23 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:26 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 15:02 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 22:00 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:50 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:09 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:20 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 17:32 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-25 17:55 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 18:49 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:23 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:30 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 02:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 02:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 18:02 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 09:18 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 02:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 13:35 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 02:10 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 15:59 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 17:26 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:50 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:21 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:27 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:36 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-06 14:41 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 17:50 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:13 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 19:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-09 11:12 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:37 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 19:22 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:14 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 23:13 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-26 00:28 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 11:15 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 17:33 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 18:59 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 14:07 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-08-22 22:37 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 15:16 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-08-22 22:26 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-08-23 02:07 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 22:42 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-23 00:54 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2012-08-24 16:16 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> - 2012-08-23 13:10 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 02:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 13:58 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2012-08-24 23:12 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-08-25 21:35 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-25 14:59 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-26 12:34 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2012-08-25 23:52 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201208.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-08-30 03:18 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-27 13:41 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:23 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-29 10:55 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 03:14 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 11:18 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:18 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 20:06 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 21:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 00:19 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 01:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 08:26 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 07:36 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 17:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-28 06:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 12:27 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 19:11 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 13:38 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 21:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 21:54 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 21:56 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 16:09 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 22:14 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 18:25 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 18:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 18:45 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 19:24 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 07:00 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 23:47 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 01:27 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:20 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 00:55 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 16:43 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:01 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-27 23:16 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 17:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 03:16 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:07 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 13:47 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 16:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-08-31 17:40 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 00:59 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> - 2012-09-03 00:31 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 08:31 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 09:13 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-03 15:38 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 18:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-03 17:04 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 23:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Herbert Rosenau <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2012-09-03 21:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 23:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2012-09-03 19:37 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-04 10:14 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 07:18 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-28 01:40 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-29 11:02 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 22:29 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 21:11 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 01:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:12 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 18:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:08 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 22:41 -0400
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 08:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k1fp15$djg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25070 |
On 08/27/2012 03:19 AM, lovecreatesbeauty wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:04:57 AM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes:
...
>>> Even their main function aren't compatible, how could they be
>>> compatible then?
...
> I saw some C++ code like :)
>
> void main()
> {
> /*...*/
> }
Well, I saw some C code like that too. Both languages define two
specific ways of defining main() that are guaranteed supported by every
hosted conforming implementation, this isn't one of them (C:5.1.2.2.1p1,
C++:3.6.1p2). Both languages explicitly allow an implementation to
accept additional forms, and many popular compilers for each language
will accept this form. Both standards fail to describe what happens if
you try to use a form not supported by your implementation, so the
behavior when you do so is undefined by reason of the absence of a
definition. (C:4p6, C++:1.3.13p3).
I don't see any relevant differences between the two languages in this
regard. Could you explain more fully how this constitutes an example of
incompatibility between C and C++?
--
James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 07:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <371dad4b-a842-42d9-9716-98b48f9a8335@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25095 |
On Monday, August 27, 2012 12:26:11 PM UTC, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 08/27/2012 03:19 AM, lovecreatesbeauty wrote:
>
> > On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:04:57 AM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> >> lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes:
>
> ...
>
> >>> Even their main function aren't compatible, how could they be
>
> >>> compatible then?
>
> ...
>
> > I saw some C++ code like :)
>
> >
>
> > void main()
>
> > {
>
> > /*...*/
>
> > }
>
>
>
> Well, I saw some C code like that too. Both languages define two
>
> specific ways of defining main() that are guaranteed supported by every
>
> hosted conforming implementation, this isn't one of them (C:5.1.2.2.1p1,
>
> C++:3.6.1p2). Both languages explicitly allow an implementation to
>
> accept additional forms, and many popular compilers for each language
>
> will accept this form. Both standards fail to describe what happens if
>
> you try to use a form not supported by your implementation, so the
>
> behavior when you do so is undefined by reason of the absence of a
>
> definition. (C:4p6, C++:1.3.13p3).
>
Hi James,
Thanks for reading.
I'm dumb. I meant in my previous message the following is valid C++ but illegal C.
int main() { /* ... */ }
What I hate about C++ is that it changes the C then adds extra features.
Objective-C just adds some other messaging features on C, and it leaves C unchanged. Its messaging parts are ugly though.
If the latest C11 paperwork had enriched the C library with more general data structures like list, queue, stack and common and algorithms on them like sort, search, that would be enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 17:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <hFM_r.202595$GZ3.185708@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25100 |
On 27/08/2012 16:36, lovecreatesbeauty wrote: [..] > If the latest C11 paperwork had enriched the C library with more general data structures like list, queue, stack and common and algorithms on them like sort, search, that would be enough. Then you should program in C++. If you need those extra features in the C language you need C++. Demanding the Standard to make such a huge change to the language is just nonsensical (to me). -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 06:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5f779fb-abba-421a-b460-deec33f7ce34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25101 |
בתאריך יום שני, 27 באוגוסט 2012 16:48:29 UTC+1, מאת Vincenzo Mercuri: > On 27/08/2012 16:36, lovecreatesbeauty wrote: > > > If the latest C11 paperwork had enriched the C library with more general > > data structures like list, queue, stack and common and algorithms on them > > like sort, search, that would be enough. > > Then you should program in C++. If you need those extra features in the > C language you need C++. Demanding the Standard to make such a huge > change to the language is just nonsensical (to me). > Declaring a library to be standard isn't really a huge change to the language. If you added syntactical support for linked lists, queues, and so on that would be a change. But there's no real need to do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 12:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <503B9FDD.3040305@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #25100 |
On 08/27/2012 10:36 AM, lovecreatesbeauty wrote:
...
> ... I meant in my previous message the following is valid C++ but illegal C.
>
> int main() { /* ... */ }
What gives you that impression? What rule do you think it breaks?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 19:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <LSN_r.202621$GZ3.128853@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25105 |
On 27/08/2012 18:27, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 08/27/2012 10:36 AM, lovecreatesbeauty wrote:
> ...
>> ... I meant in my previous message the following is valid C++ but illegal C.
>>
>> int main() { /* ... */ }
>
> What gives you that impression? What rule do you think it breaks?
>
I think it is implementation-defined whether it is supported or not,
even though almost all the implementations do support it. But I'd say
that it is not the "most portable" way to define main.
--
Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 13:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <503BB07E.8070109@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #25111 |
On 08/27/2012 01:11 PM, Vincenzo Mercuri wrote:
> On 27/08/2012 18:27, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 08/27/2012 10:36 AM, lovecreatesbeauty wrote:
>> ...
>>> ... I meant in my previous message the following is valid C++ but illegal C.
>>>
>>> int main() { /* ... */ }
>>
>> What gives you that impression? What rule do you think it breaks?
>>
>
> I think it is implementation-defined whether it is supported or not,
Citation, please?
> even though almost all the implementations do support it. But I'd say
> that it is not the "most portable" way to define main.
The standard describes two ways of defining main(), and requires every
conforming implementation of C to support any definition of main
equivalent to one of those two ways. This form is not the same as either
one of those, but it is equivalent to the first of those two ways. The
same is true of the C++ standard. Therefore, I'd expect it to be
extremely portable. What gives you doubts on the matter?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 21:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8aQ_r.202661$GZ3.178925@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25114 |
On 27/08/2012 19:38, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 08/27/2012 01:11 PM, Vincenzo Mercuri wrote:
>> On 27/08/2012 18:27, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 08/27/2012 10:36 AM, lovecreatesbeauty wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> ... I meant in my previous message the following is valid C++ but illegal C.
>>>>
>>>> int main() { /* ... */ }
>>>
>>> What gives you that impression? What rule do you think it breaks?
>>>
>>
>> I think it is implementation-defined whether it is supported or not,
>
> Citation, please?
When the Standard says (N1570 5.1.2.2.1p1):
(...) It shall be defined with a return type of int and with no
parameters:
int main(void) { /* ... */ }
or with two parameters (referred to here as argc and argv, though
any names may be used, as they are local to the function in which
they are declared):
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* ... */ }
or equivalent;10) or in some other implementation-defined manner.
footnote 10):
Thus, int can be replaced by a typedef name defined as int,
or the type of argv can be written as char ** argv, and so on.
Given that I don't think that "int main(void)" and "int main()" are
"equivalent", my claim that "it is implementation-defined whether it is
supported or not" is taken into account by the phrase "or in some other
implementation-defined manner".
>
>> even though almost all the implementations do support it. But I'd say
>> that it is not the "most portable" way to define main.
>
> The standard describes two ways of defining main(), and requires every
> conforming implementation of C to support any definition of main
> equivalent to one of those two ways. This form is not the same as either
> one of those, but it is equivalent to the first of those two ways.
[..]
That's the point. If you say that "int main(void)" is equivalent to
"int main()" then you are saying that it is also equivalent to
"int main(int argc, char **argv, char **env)" or "int main(int argc)",
but I'm not convinced that compilers are obliged to support all these
definitions.
--
Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 21:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503BD05A.9030804@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25125 |
Am 27.08.2012 21:48, schrieb Vincenzo Mercuri: > That's the point. If you say that "int main(void)" is equivalent to > "int main()" then you are saying that it is also equivalent to > "int main(int argc, char **argv, char **env)" or "int main(int argc)", > but I'm not convinced that compilers are obliged to support all these > definitions. No "int main()" is equivalent to "int main(void)" for definitions. There is this extra rule for definitions (versus just declarations) such that these two are equivalent. Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 21:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3iQ_r.202665$GZ3.145781@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25126 |
On 27/08/2012 21:54, Jens Gustedt wrote: > Am 27.08.2012 21:48, schrieb Vincenzo Mercuri: >> That's the point. If you say that "int main(void)" is equivalent to >> "int main()" then you are saying that it is also equivalent to >> "int main(int argc, char **argv, char **env)" or "int main(int argc)", >> but I'm not convinced that compilers are obliged to support all these >> definitions. > > No "int main()" is equivalent to "int main(void)" for > definitions. There is this extra rule for definitions (versus just > declarations) such that these two are equivalent. > Thanks, then I must have missed that part, where I can find the definition of this equivalence? -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 16:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <503BD407.5030004@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #25127 |
On 08/27/2012 03:56 PM, Vincenzo Mercuri wrote: ... > Thanks, then I must have missed that part, where I can find the > definition of this equivalence? 6.7.6.3p10: "The special case of an unnamed parameter of type void as the only item in the list specifies that the function has no parameters." 6.7.6.3p14: "An empty list in a function declarator that is part of a definition of that function specifies that the function has no parameters." It doesn't directly say that the declarations are equivalent, but what it says about what those declaration specify, is word-for-word identical in both cases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 22:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ByQ_r.202672$GZ3.6453@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25128 |
Il 27/08/2012 22:09, James Kuyper ha scritto: > On 08/27/2012 03:56 PM, Vincenzo Mercuri wrote: > ... >> Thanks, then I must have missed that part, where I can find the >> definition of this equivalence? > > 6.7.6.3p10: "The special case of an unnamed parameter of type void as > the only item in the list specifies that the function has no parameters." > > 6.7.6.3p14: "An empty list in a function declarator that is part of a > definition of that function specifies that the function has no parameters." > > It doesn't directly say that the declarations are equivalent, but what > it says about what those declaration specify, is word-for-word identical > in both cases. > Thank you ;) -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 18:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2363d3fd-bb27-4831-a88b-8c8bedca4f85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25128 |
On Monday, August 27, 2012 8:09:45 PM UTC, James Kuyper wrote:
>
> 6.7.6.3p10: "The special case of an unnamed parameter of type void as
> the only item in the list specifies that the function has no parameters."
>
> 6.7.6.3p14: "An empty list in a function declarator that is part of a
> definition of that function specifies that the function has no parameters."
>
> It doesn't directly say that the declarations are equivalent, but what
> it says about what those declaration specify, is word-for-word identical
> in both cases.
Thank you.
the n1570.pdf has both presented.
int main(){} /* 1 */
int main(void){} /* 2 */
"C: A Reference Manual, 5th" states
form 1 "also OK, but not recommended" in sec 9.9, and in sec 9.2
"void is optional in function definition but needed in prototype".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 18:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnfw77240x.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25161 |
lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 8:09:45 PM UTC, James Kuyper wrote:
>>
>> 6.7.6.3p10: "The special case of an unnamed parameter of type void as
>> the only item in the list specifies that the function has no parameters."
>>
>> 6.7.6.3p14: "An empty list in a function declarator that is part of a
>> definition of that function specifies that the function has no parameters."
>>
>> It doesn't directly say that the declarations are equivalent, but what
>> it says about what those declaration specify, is word-for-word identical
>> in both cases.
>
> Thank you.
>
> the n1570.pdf has both presented.
>
> int main(){} /* 1 */
> int main(void){} /* 2 */
What? No, N1570 never mentions `int main(){}`. It presents two
definitions of main that must be supported by all hosted
implementations:
int main(void) { /* ... */ }
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* ... */ }
"or equivalent; or in some other implementation-defined manner."
(C99 and C90 are essentially the same.)
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 18:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a101c79-ccb2-41af-9fa3-5c505e72e60d@t4g2000vba.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25163 |
On Aug 28, 4:34 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbea...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Monday, August 27, 2012 8:09:45 PM UTC, James Kuyper wrote:
>
> >> 6.7.6.3p10: "The special case of an unnamed parameter of type void as
> >> the only item in the list specifies that the function has no parameters."
>
> >> 6.7.6.3p14: "An empty list in a function declarator that is part of a
> >> definition of that function specifies that the function has no parameters."
>
> >> It doesn't directly say that the declarations are equivalent, but what
> >> it says about what those declaration specify, is word-for-word identical
> >> in both cases.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> > the n1570.pdf has both presented.
>
> > int main(){} /* 1 */
> > int main(void){} /* 2 */
>
> What? No, N1570 never mentions `int main(){}`.
Yes it does, at least twice (see examples on pages 91 and 135).
> It presents two definitions of main that must be supported
> by all hosted implementations:
>
> int main(void) { /* ... */ }
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* ... */ }
>
> "or equivalent; or in some other implementation-defined manner."
> (C99 and C90 are essentially the same.)
Although it lists the former as an example of the first possible
scenario, I think more important is the actual description, which
reads:
It [main] shall be defined with a return type of int and with
no parameters.
Which the following *will* do (while possibly failing to provide a
prototype for itself):
int main() { }
> [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 19:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lna9xf21ps.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25165 |
eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> writes:
> On Aug 28, 4:34 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbea...@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
>> > the n1570.pdf has both presented.
>>
>> > int main(){} /* 1 */
>> > int main(void){} /* 2 */
>>
>> What? No, N1570 never mentions `int main(){}`.
>
> Yes it does, at least twice (see examples on pages 91 and 135).
The example on page 91 is in section 6.5.3.4 paragraph 8. The example
on page 135 is in section 6.7.6.3 paragraph 20. Every PDF reader I've
used makes it *much* easier to find things by section number than by
page number (all the page numbers in N1570 are off by 18).
But yes, you're right, N1570 does mention `int main()` (but never
in normative text). Either I didn't know that or I had forgotten it.
Thanks for pointing it out.
>> It presents two definitions of main that must be supported
>> by all hosted implementations:
>>
>> int main(void) { /* ... */ }
>>
>> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* ... */ }
>>
>> "or equivalent; or in some other implementation-defined manner."
>> (C99 and C90 are essentially the same.)
>
> Although it lists the former as an example of the first possible
> scenario, I think more important is the actual description, which
> reads:
>
> It [main] shall be defined with a return type of int and with
> no parameters.
I don't think that either the description or the code is, or should be,
more important than the other. They're both normative and they should
be consistent. The two definitions of `main` could easily have been
marked as examples; they aren't.
The description of the two-parameter form:
or with two parameters (referred to here as argc and argv, though
any names may be used, as they are local to the function in which
they are declared):
is incomplete, since it says nothing about the types of those two
parameters; we need the actual code:
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* ... */ }
to know that they're of type `int` and `char**`.
Similarly, I'd say that the description of the zero parameter form:
... and with no parameters:
is incomplete, and requires the code:
int main(void) { /* ... */ }
to specify just *how* it's defined with no parameters.
> Which the following *will* do (while possibly failing to provide a
> prototype for itself):
>
> int main() { }
You can safely define main in a way that's "equivalent" to one of
the two forms given, both of which are presented by a combination
of English text and C code. Variations such as using a typedef for
int rather than int, or using different names for argc and argv,
or writing `char **argv` rather than `char *argv[]`, clearly provide
equivalent definitions. It's far less clear that `int main() { }`
does so.
The examples you cite do strongly imply that `int main(){}` was
*intended* to be a valid definition, as does the observation that
making it invalid would have broken pre-ANSI code, something the
C89 committee was generally careful to avoid. My argument is that
the wording of the standard does not accurately reflect this intent.
I'ts plausible that the committee meant for us to assume that `int
main(void){}` and `int main(){}` are "equivalent". They certainly are
equivalent *in some ways*. My reading is that they are *not* entirely
equivalent, and their partial equivalence is not enough to say that
they're "equivalent". This at least needs to be made clearer.
(Dropping old-style function declarations and definitions, as the
standard has been threatening to do since 1989, would neatly resolve
this.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfna9x2kk4r.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #25166 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Aug 28, 4:34 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
[...talking about different ways of defining 'main()'...]
>
> The examples you cite do strongly imply that `int main(){}` was
> *intended* to be a valid definition, as does the observation that
> making it invalid would have broken pre-ANSI code, something the
> C89 committee was generally careful to avoid. My argument is that
> the wording of the standard does not accurately reflect this intent.
>
> I'ts plausible that the committee meant for us to assume that `int
> main(void){}` and `int main(){}` are "equivalent". They certainly are
> equivalent *in some ways*. My reading is that they are *not* entirely
> equivalent, and their partial equivalence is not enough to say that
> they're "equivalent". This at least needs to be made clearer.
Obviously "equivalent" was meant to read in the sense of what the
calling sequence would be. I wouldn't mind a clarifying footnote,
but I don't think even that small a change is absolutely necessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 23:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be312d9f-9f84-4f86-867e-bde6a6307734@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25163 |
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:34:23 AM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
> lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > the n1570.pdf has both presented.
>
> > int main(){} /* 1 */
> > int main(void){} /* 2 */
>
> What? No, N1570 never mentions `int main(){}`. It presents two
>
Hi Keith,
Maybe that's print error then, i guess.
n1570, sec 6.5.3.4 p8 / page 91. similar code repeated on other pages in this doc.
n1256 has this too.
--vvvv--
N1570 Committee Draft — April 12, 2011 ISO/IEC 9899:201x
size_t fsize3(int n)
{
char b[n+3]; // variable length array
return sizeof b; // execution time sizeof
}
int main()
{
size_t size;
size = fsize3(10); // fsize3 returns 13
return 0;
}
Forward references: common definitions <stddef.h> (7.19), declarations (6.7),
structure and union specifiers (6.7.2.1), type names (6.7.7), array declarators (6.7.6.2).
6.5.4 Cast operators
--^^^^--
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 01:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln1uir1kvp.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25190 |
lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:34:23 AM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > the n1570.pdf has both presented.
>>
>> > int main(){} /* 1 */
>> > int main(void){} /* 2 */
>>
>> What? No, N1570 never mentions `int main(){}`. It presents two
>>
>
> Maybe that's print error then, i guess.
>
> n1570, sec 6.5.3.4 p8 / page 91. similar code repeated on other pages
> in this doc.
Right, it occurs exactly twice, in *non-normative* examples. I hadn't
been aware of that. See my recent followup in this thread to "eq mail".
My argument about what the normative text of the standard implies still
stands (I think); it is at least unclear.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnsjb8asei.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25126 |
Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> writes:
> Am 27.08.2012 21:48, schrieb Vincenzo Mercuri:
>> That's the point. If you say that "int main(void)" is equivalent to
>> "int main()" then you are saying that it is also equivalent to
>> "int main(int argc, char **argv, char **env)" or "int main(int argc)",
>> but I'm not convinced that compilers are obliged to support all these
>> definitions.
>
> No "int main()" is equivalent to "int main(void)" for
> definitions. There is this extra rule for definitions (versus just
> declarations) such that these two are equivalent.
Definitions also provide declarations.
This program contains a constraint violation:
int main(void) {
if (0) main(42);
return 0;
}
This one, I argue, is strictly conforming (its behavior would be
undefined if the call were executed).
int main() {
if (0) main(42);
return 0;
}
Thus the two definitions are not equivalent, unless you use a rather
loose definition of the word "equivalent".
On the other hand, I believe it was *intended* for `int main()` to be
valid; requiring the `void` keyword would have broken existing pre-ANSI
code.
But `int main(void)` (if you don't need argc and argv) is better for
newly written C programs.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web