Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #58467 > unrolled thread

More trouble with strtoul

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  More trouble with strtoul jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 08:13 +0100
    Re: More trouble with strtoul Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-20 07:31 +0000
    Re: More trouble with strtoul Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-20 03:36 -0500
      Re: More trouble with strtoul Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-20 08:42 +0000
      Re: More trouble with strtoul jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 10:12 +0100
        Re: More trouble with strtoul Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-20 10:16 +0000
          Re: More trouble with strtoul: BUG in MSVC jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 11:49 +0100
        Re: More trouble with strtoul Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-20 05:54 -0500
        Re: More trouble with strtoul Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-03-20 08:16 -0700
          Re: More trouble with strtoul jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 16:31 +0100
        Re: More trouble with strtoul Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-20 08:48 -0700
          Re: More trouble with strtoul jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 16:51 +0100
            Re: More trouble with strtoul Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-20 09:21 -0700
              Re: More trouble with strtoul jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 17:53 +0100
          Re: More trouble with strtoul glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-20 17:23 +0000
            Re: More trouble with strtoul jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 18:25 +0100
            Re: More trouble with strtoul Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-20 10:35 -0700
              Re: More trouble with strtoul Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-21 08:52 +1300
                Re: More trouble with strtoul Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-20 13:41 -0700
        Re: More trouble with strtoul Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-21 08:45 +1300
          Re: More trouble with strtoul Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-21 08:47 +1300
          Re: More trouble with strtoul jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 21:16 +0100
            Re: More trouble with strtoul Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-21 09:33 +1300
        Re: More trouble with strtoul Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-20 20:05 +0000
        Re: More trouble with strtoul Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-20 21:55 +0100
          Re: More trouble with strtoul Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-21 11:13 +1300
            Re: More trouble with strtoul Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-20 23:41 +0100
              Re: More trouble with strtoul Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-20 16:27 -0700
                Re: More trouble with strtoul Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-21 01:47 +0100
            Re: More trouble with strtoul Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-21 02:03 +0000
              Re: More trouble with strtoul Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-21 15:13 +1300
                Re: More trouble with strtoul Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-21 03:22 +0100
                Re: More trouble with strtoul Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-21 02:25 +0000
    Re: More trouble with strtoul Lőrinczy Zsigmond <zsiga@nospam.for.me> - 2015-03-20 10:11 +0100
      Re: More trouble with strtoul Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-20 06:13 -0500
    Re: More trouble with strtoul Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-20 09:05 -0700
      Re: More trouble with strtoul jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 17:35 +0100
        Re: More trouble with strtoul Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-20 10:56 -0700
          Re: More trouble with strtoul Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-20 15:31 -0500
    Re: More trouble with strtoul jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 18:28 +0100
      Re: More trouble with strtoul Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-21 09:01 +1300
        Re: More trouble with strtoul jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 21:12 +0100
          Re: More trouble with strtoul Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-20 20:21 +0000
          Re: More trouble with strtoul Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-21 09:36 +1300
          Re: More trouble with strtoul Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-20 15:47 -0500
            Re: More trouble with strtoul Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-20 21:20 +0000
              Re: More trouble with strtoul Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-21 00:24 -0500
            Re: More trouble with strtoul jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 23:04 +0100
        Re: More trouble with strtoul Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-20 13:41 -0700
    Re: More trouble with strtoul raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-21 22:49 +0000
      Re: More trouble with strtoul Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-21 16:17 -0700
        Re: More trouble with strtoul Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 12:01 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#58533

jacob navia wrote:
> I filed a cbug report at the web site indicated by the gcc implementation
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/tdm-gcc/bugs/258/

Shouldn't you be reporting a bug against your platform's library?  The 
compiler isn't to blame, your code works as expected elsewhere.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58535

Le 20/03/2015 21:01, Ian Collins a écrit :
> jacob navia wrote:
>> I filed a cbug report at the web site indicated by the gcc implementation
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/p/tdm-gcc/bugs/258/
>
> Shouldn't you be reporting a bug against your platform's library?  The
> compiler isn't to blame, your code works as expected elsewhere.
>
I do not care really. I report the bug to the address indicated by the 
compiler. Now, it is up to them to find which piece of source code is 
responsible for that. The only URL for reporting bugs was that one anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58537

On 2015-03-20, jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
> Le 20/03/2015 21:01, Ian Collins a écrit :
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>> I filed a cbug report at the web site indicated by the gcc implementation
>>>
>>> http://sourceforge.net/p/tdm-gcc/bugs/258/
>>
>> Shouldn't you be reporting a bug against your platform's library?  The
>> compiler isn't to blame, your code works as expected elsewhere.
>>
> I do not care really. I report the bug to the address indicated by the 
> compiler. Now, it is up to them to find which piece of source code is 
> responsible for that. 

They will not bother searching, because they know that the piece of source code
responsible is not in their project.

The answer will be "please report this against your platform's library".

> The only URL for reporting bugs was that one anyway.

What piece of documentation connects errno or strtoul to the GCC
bug reporting URL?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58540

jacob navia wrote:
> Le 20/03/2015 21:01, Ian Collins a écrit :
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>> I filed a cbug report at the web site indicated by the gcc implementation
>>>
>>> http://sourceforge.net/p/tdm-gcc/bugs/258/
>>
>> Shouldn't you be reporting a bug against your platform's library?  The
>> compiler isn't to blame, your code works as expected elsewhere.
>>
> I do not care really. I report the bug to the address indicated by the
> compiler. Now, it is up to them to find which piece of source code is
> responsible for that. The only URL for reporting bugs was that one anyway.

They will simply tell you what people have been telling you here: it's 
somebody else's problem!

The bug isn't in the compiler.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58543

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 21:12:43 +0100, jacob navia
<jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:

>Le 20/03/2015 21:01, Ian Collins a écrit :
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>> I filed a cbug report at the web site indicated by the gcc implementation
>>>
>>> http://sourceforge.net/p/tdm-gcc/bugs/258/
>>
>> Shouldn't you be reporting a bug against your platform's library?  The
>> compiler isn't to blame, your code works as expected elsewhere.
>>
>I do not care really. I report the bug to the address indicated by the 
>compiler. Now, it is up to them to find which piece of source code is 
>responsible for that. The only URL for reporting bugs was that one anyway.


As I mentioned in my post detailing the problem, it's not a GCC bug.
They don't do the library.  It is plausibly a Mingw bug, since they're
supplying the package, but it's really an MS bug, since Mingw is just
using MS's clib.

Mingw is very unusual in that sense that they're (ab)using a library
not actually intended to work with GCC.  It's such an unusual
environment that not mentioning it explicitly (you did imply it, but
rather indirectly) likely threw everyone a bit off course at the
beginning.  It certainly did me.

If you're intention is checking for compatibility with typical (*nix)
implementations of GCC+glibc, testing against mingw is *not* going to
do it, even remotely.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58545

On 2015-03-20, Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mingw is very unusual in that sense that they're (ab)using a library
> not actually intended to work with GCC.  It's such an unusual
> environment that not mentioning it explicitly (you did imply it, but
> rather indirectly) likely threw everyone a bit off course at the
> beginning.  It certainly did me.

In another sense, it's an *obvious* environment. Take Microsoft's libs, and
slide in gcc for code generation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58558

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 21:20:31 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
<kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:

>On 2015-03-20, Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Mingw is very unusual in that sense that they're (ab)using a library
>> not actually intended to work with GCC.  It's such an unusual
>> environment that not mentioning it explicitly (you did imply it, but
>> rather indirectly) likely threw everyone a bit off course at the
>> beginning.  It certainly did me.
>
>In another sense, it's an *obvious* environment. Take Microsoft's libs, and
>slide in gcc for code generation.


Theoretically you're right, but in practice you'd expect one or the
other, or both, to be adapted to be fairly compatible with each other.
While there's certainly partial adaptation of the compiler side (and
pretty much none on the library side), they're still more than a bit
of a force fit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58546

Le 20/03/2015 21:47, Robert Wessel a écrit :

> Mingw is very unusual in that sense that they're (ab)using a library
> not actually intended to work with GCC.  It's such an unusual
> environment that not mentioning it explicitly (you did imply it, but
> rather indirectly) likely threw everyone a bit off course at the
> beginning.  It certainly did me.
>
> If you're intention is checking for compatibility with typical (*nix)
> implementations of GCC+glibc, testing against mingw is *not* going to
> do it, even remotely.
>

My intention was to iron out MY bugs. I have a program to compare my 
results with other compilers within the development environment, as I 
said, the windows environment, to check that I do not do something wrong.

In a previous message I was set off by 0x1 and base == 16. That was a 
bug at my side.  And many others I did not report here... :-)

Since I was until then always wrong and gcc right, I wondered a lot 
about that 1 I was obtaining with gcc.

You can tell me that is in the library but the distribution is 
responsible for the WHOLE package and when you type:

gcc -v

they tell you that you should report bugs to that URL. I did that,
because I am using gcc and I think that it is fair that I report to them 
any bugs I discover in their software. Now, the internals of the mingw 
group, that they are piggy-riding the poor CRTDLL.DLL is no longer my 
problem. I can't do anything about it.

Note: The URL is for the package provider, NOT the general gcc URL for 
reporting bugs. So, I did report the bug to the right place. Now, if 
they "pass the buck" to Microsoft that is no longer my decision nor my 
problem.

Contrary to what many people believe, you CAN replace one or more 
functions within CRTDLL.DLL whenever you wish. I did that for years when 
I was doing the same as mingw: piggybacking CRTDLL.DLL. Whenever a 
customer reported a bug, or when I needed to replace to support C99, I 
wrote a new function and put it in my clib and that took precedence over 
the one in CRTDLL.DLL. It is as simple as that correcting a bug in 
CRTDLL.DLL.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58542

Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
> jacob navia wrote:
>> I filed a cbug report at the web site indicated by the gcc implementation
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/p/tdm-gcc/bugs/258/
>
> Shouldn't you be reporting a bug against your platform's library?  The
> compiler isn't to blame, your code works as expected elsewhere.

I'd like to see the results for the test program I posted before
assuming there's a bug anywhere.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
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"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58615

jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:

> This is one of the last diferences I have with gcc. Can anybody here 
> enlighten me as to where did I get it wrong? (If at all I am wrong and 
> not gcc)

Are you trying to be bug-for-but compatible with Ganuck? If so, don't
bother. Just get it _right_ - they don't always want to.

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58619

raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
>> This is one of the last diferences I have with gcc. Can anybody here 
>> enlighten me as to where did I get it wrong? (If at all I am wrong and 
>> not gcc)
>
> Are you trying to be bug-for-but compatible with Ganuck? If so, don't
> bother. Just get it _right_ - they don't always want to.

I've seen no evidence of a bug in GNU software.  There appears to be a
bug in the Microsoft runtime library, but I'm still waiting for
definitive information in the form of output from the test program I
posted.  (Perhaps someone else can try that.  I don't currently have a
Windows system myself.)

I agree that jacob should aim for standard conformance rather than GNU
compatibility, but I don't think that's the issue here.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
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"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58863

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:

> raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
>> jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
>>> This is one of the last diferences I have with gcc.  Can anybody here 
>>> enlighten me as to where did I get it wrong?  (If at all I am wrong and 
>>> not gcc)
>>
>> Are you trying to be bug-for-but compatible with Ganuck?  If so, don't
>> bother.  Just get it _right_ - they don't always want to.
>
> I've seen no evidence of a bug in GNU software. [snip]

FWIW my tests on two different Linux systems (one 32-bit,
one 64-bit) agree with yours.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web