Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #106884 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-24 11:25 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-03-30 00:50 -0700 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 287 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-24 11:25 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 11:04 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-24 11:44 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-24 12:59 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-24 14:06 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 13:01 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 12:39 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 13:17 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 13:38 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 13:50 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 14:06 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 14:20 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 15:49 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 16:35 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 14:51 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-24 23:36 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 15:43 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 17:57 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 18:13 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 18:32 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-24 12:11 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 19:56 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-24 13:48 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 21:17 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-24 22:40 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 21:56 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-25 01:14 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-25 01:19 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-25 01:30 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-25 12:46 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-25 20:10 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win gordonb.l3ybu@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-03-27 03:34 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 11:41 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win gordonb.15yss@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-03-27 14:48 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-27 13:31 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 22:22 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-27 15:05 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 23:22 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-28 00:35 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 19:09 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-21 21:01 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-21 12:33 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-21 21:44 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-21 13:37 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 13:03 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-21 13:15 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-21 13:35 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-21 15:30 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-21 18:44 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-22 21:08 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-23 10:26 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-23 19:08 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-23 14:26 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-23 16:52 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-23 16:31 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-23 20:42 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-23 22:32 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-24 13:37 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 07:13 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-27 07:54 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-27 18:20 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:23 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-30 18:18 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 12:12 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 11:14 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 13:29 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-27 16:00 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-28 13:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-28 15:20 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-28 16:50 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 09:28 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-28 19:45 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 12:06 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 20:14 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-28 20:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-28 21:33 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-28 13:10 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-28 22:15 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-29 13:23 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-28 21:29 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-28 20:47 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-28 22:46 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-28 23:46 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-29 00:53 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 02:00 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 05:05 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-29 10:57 -0400
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-29 17:06 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 08:39 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 18:29 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-28 23:44 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 12:33 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-29 08:54 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 17:38 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-29 16:42 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-29 20:09 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-29 13:29 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-30 13:18 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-30 08:22 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-30 00:20 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-29 15:38 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-30 13:19 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-28 18:29 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-29 01:36 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-29 22:36 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-29 23:50 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-30 10:57 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 15:10 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-30 11:15 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 09:22 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 18:50 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 09:31 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 10:26 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-30 13:23 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-30 12:01 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-02 13:51 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-02 23:04 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-03 17:45 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-03 22:09 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 23:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-29 15:52 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-30 12:26 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 12:00 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 12:43 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 13:38 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-30 14:21 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-31 04:30 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-31 09:39 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jadill33@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 07:12 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-30 12:10 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-29 13:25 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 14:55 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-29 16:11 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 16:40 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-29 18:14 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 18:32 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 20:53 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-21 00:36 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 05:41 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-24 15:14 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-04-26 14:02 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-26 16:04 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 12:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 14:43 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-29 23:21 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-29 23:58 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 11:10 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-30 00:09 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 01:51 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-30 01:58 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 12:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 14:29 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 14:36 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 16:23 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-01 11:59 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-01 14:41 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-03 11:08 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-03 12:02 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-03 14:32 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-03 14:40 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-03 16:47 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-07 16:56 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-07 18:06 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-07 20:02 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-07 19:49 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-08 13:26 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-08 13:33 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-08 16:27 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-08 22:28 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-09 13:54 +1200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 07:55 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-09 10:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-09 10:45 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-09 10:53 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-09 14:03 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-10 16:17 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 10:24 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-14 12:29 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-09 13:04 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 14:13 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-08 14:33 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-08 07:36 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-08 10:22 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-07 11:11 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-07 19:28 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-07 11:44 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-04-08 08:00 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-07 12:29 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-07 13:46 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-07 14:10 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-30 21:59 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-31 00:19 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 17:53 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 11:34 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 12:35 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 04:38 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 13:14 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 14:38 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-31 08:52 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-02 13:58 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-02 17:02 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-03 17:50 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-03 23:10 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-03 07:20 +1200
Optimized? (Was: Even more problems with lcc-win) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-04-02 19:39 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-02 15:59 -0400
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-02 14:11 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-03 17:08 +1200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-03 13:42 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 13:06 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 14:58 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 14:50 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 16:27 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 16:57 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 14:31 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-28 15:54 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 08:07 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win gordonb.uls6t@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-03-29 18:17 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 19:20 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-30 18:49 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-30 20:07 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win gordonb.b709o@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-04-16 03:45 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-16 16:34 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-16 20:27 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-16 12:16 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-17 02:29 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-27 19:01 -0400
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-25 23:19 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-25 19:10 -0400
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-26 00:54 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-25 19:48 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-26 05:12 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-26 14:00 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win gordonb.zdxct@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-03-27 02:03 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-24 22:39 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-25 09:13 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-25 11:24 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-26 08:42 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-25 19:51 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-26 09:10 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-25 20:24 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-25 13:43 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-26 10:30 +1300
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-03-26 10:23 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 15:08 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-24 22:43 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 15:55 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-24 16:27 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-25 01:17 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-25 01:18 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 15:06 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 16:37 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 16:25 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 17:57 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 19:12 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-27 14:19 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 19:25 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 08:10 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 13:01 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 15:50 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 13:07 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-24 15:48 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 16:26 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 16:32 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 12:53 -0400
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-24 18:24 +0100
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 17:29 +0000
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-24 10:55 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 10:47 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-24 09:37 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-25 15:07 -0500
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 09:56 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-29 10:39 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-29 12:22 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 15:10 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-29 16:58 -0700
Re: Even more problems with Seed7 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-30 01:02 +0200
Re: Even more problems with Seed7 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-30 01:05 -0500
Re: Even more problems with Seed7 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-30 01:19 -0500
Re: Even more problems with Seed7 mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-04-02 04:19 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 00:34 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 13:05 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-31 00:00 +0200
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-04-02 00:28 -0700
Re: Even more problems with lcc-win mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 00:50 -0700
Page 15 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 01:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Even more problems with Seed7 |
| Message-ID | <lo8pdclibdject3v0kpchlgf608c4o1jgk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #107455 |
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 01:05:47 -0500, Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 01:02:05 +0200, jacobnavia ><jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote: > >>> - lcc-win32: Compiles after I provided the missing functions >>> _wchdir, _wgetcwd, _wmkdir, _wrmdir, _wrename, >>> _wremove, _wchmod, _wcsicmp (Note that this are >>> windows functions, POSIX does NOT know them). >>> The interpreter runs, but there are issues >>> (see testlcc*.c from previous discussions). >> >>You say you "provided", but not to me, as far as I remember. For your >>application you wrote the missing stuff and added it to your software. >> >>OK. >> >>I provided the C compiler for free. Modulo the few bugs reported, the >>thing is running. >> >> >>> - lcc-win64: With several hickups (and the same functions >>> as above) the compile succeeds. But there are >>> still missing functions and an error: >>> fil_win.obj .text: undefined reference to '_open_osfhandle' >> >>That's a windows function. I think microsoft deprecated it in 64 bits, >>in any case it is not a bug in lcc-win. > > >To be picky, it's a CRT/CLib function, not part of Windows API. It's >still supported in 64-bit code. The POSIX equivalent is fileno. > >In POSIX, the opposite translation is done by fdopen. The Windows >version of that, _fdopen, does something a bit different, it turns an >fd from _open into a FILE. Going from a system HANDLE to a CRT FILE >is done with _open_ofshandle. I *think* there was some way to do that >before _open_ofshandle existed (I seem to recall creating an fd from a >HANDLE, then _fdopen'ing that), but that was a long time ago. > >Both pairs of those functions need to be in the CRT, since the OS >doesn't know how to create a FILE structure. And, of course, it's _open_osfhandle (not *ofs*).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mertesthomas@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 04:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Even more problems with Seed7 |
| Message-ID | <e9b81f6b-0615-42c2-bb93-b7bef2312791@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #107456 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 08:18:30 UTC+2 schrieb robert...@yahoo.com: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 01:05:47 -0500, Robert Wessel > <robertwessel2> wrote: > > >On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 01:02:05 +0200, jacobnavia > ><jacob> wrote: > > > >>> - lcc-win32: Compiles after I provided the missing functions > >>> _wchdir, _wgetcwd, _wmkdir, _wrmdir, _wrename, > >>> _wremove, _wchmod, _wcsicmp (Note that this are > >>> windows functions, POSIX does NOT know them). > >>> The interpreter runs, but there are issues > >>> (see testlcc*.c from previous discussions). > >> > >>You say you "provided", but not to me, as far as I remember. For your > >>application you wrote the missing stuff and added it to your software. > >> > >>OK. > >> > >>I provided the C compiler for free. Modulo the few bugs reported, the > >>thing is running. > >> > >> > >>> - lcc-win64: With several hickups (and the same functions > >>> as above) the compile succeeds. But there are > >>> still missing functions and an error: > >>> fil_win.obj .text: undefined reference to '_open_osfhandle' > >> > >>That's a windows function. I think microsoft deprecated it in 64 bits, > >>in any case it is not a bug in lcc-win. > > > > > >To be picky, it's a CRT/CLib function, not part of Windows API. It's > >still supported in 64-bit code. The POSIX equivalent is fileno. > > > >In POSIX, the opposite translation is done by fdopen. The Windows > >version of that, _fdopen, does something a bit different, it turns an > >fd from _open into a FILE. Going from a system HANDLE to a CRT FILE > >is done with _open_ofshandle. I *think* there was some way to do that > >before _open_ofshandle existed (I seem to recall creating an fd from a > >HANDLE, then _fdopen'ing that), but that was a long time ago. > > > >Both pairs of those functions need to be in the CRT, since the OS > >doesn't know how to create a FILE structure. > > > And, of course, it's _open_osfhandle (not *ofs*). Yes. Windows system functions (e.g. CreateProcess) use file handles and programs use FILE pointers (e.g. fprintf, etc.). Converting back and forth between them is essential to do programming under windows. Unfortunately there are no direct conversions between file handles and FILE pointers. But there are conversions to and from file descriptors. So the file descriptors can be used as middle value. Basically there are four functions to convert between file handle and file descriptor: fileno, fdopen, _get_osfhandle and _open_osfhandle. The function fileno does: FILE pointer --> file descriptor The function fdopen does the opposite of fileno: file descriptor --> FILE pointer The function _get_osfhandle does: file descriptor --> file handle The function _open_osfhandle does the opposite of _get_osfhandle: file handle --> file descriptor So if you want to get a file handle from a FILE pointer you do: FILE *myFile; HANDLE fileHandle; ... fileHandle = _get_osfhandle(fileno(myFile)) To get a FILE pointer from a file handle you do: HANDLE fileHandle; FILE *myFile; ... myFile = fdopen(_open_osfhandle(fileHandle, _O_TEXT), "r"); You see: fileno, fdopen, _get_osfhandle and _open_osfhandle are essential to do serious programming under windows. Please provide this functions for lcc-win64. Thank you very much in advance for your effort. Regards, Thomas Mertes -- Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements and operators, abstract data types, templates without special syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed, interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mertesthomas@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 00:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <064282a8-9997-4bcf-9824-9d2355602151@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #107408 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 01:02:45 UTC+2 schrieb jacobnavia:
> Le 29/03/2017 à 18:56, mertesthomas a écrit :
> > Am Freitag, 24. März 2017 11:25:27 UTC+1 schrieb jacobnavia:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I am starting to get results with my ARM64 port. lcc-win is compiling
> >> big programs now, without any problems...
> >>
> >> The acid test is to compile the compiler with itself.
> >
> > A compiler that compiles itself is an important milestone, for
> > sure. But this is not the real acid test. Unknowingly you may
> > code around all weaknesses of your compiler (In your subconscious
> > mind you know all weaknesses of the compiler).
> >
>
> And very consciously too. For instance the feature of passing structs by
> value gave me a lot of headaches. So I coded around it, and then saw if
> I could isolate the bug somewhere else, in smaller programs than the
> compiler, or in a better part of the compiler for debugging.
>
> At the end I erased all the changes and fixed all known problems. But
> being able to work around made me advance. Obviously compiling the
> compiler code with itself is just a milestone, a compiler needs time to
> debug, a lot of time. I haven't even released this version yet.
>
> > The real acid test is to compile big programs that come
> > from outside.
>
> I compiled gcc with the 32 bit version. and I had an asm file with the
> output of the gcc compiled with lcc. The current gcc, and the gcc
> compiled with lcc should produce exactly the same assembler output. And
> they did. But in that time it was feasible to do that, gcc was much
> smaller. Today is bloated beyond recognition.
>
> I have such things as the Linux kernel, the X11
> > library or Firefox in my mind.
>
> The linux kernel is written for gcc. I do not feel (nor would I be able)
> to compile that, excuse me. I would have to reproduce all non standard
> behavior that is assumed in that code, an OS kernel.
>
> Compilers like clang and icc
> > can e.g. claim that they can compile the Linux kernel.
> >
>
> Great. I do not claim that, and I do not think I will ever attempt that.
> For what reason?
>
> Gcc exists. C language usage and applications other than os kernels are
> feasible... Applications that could be served with a little c compiler.
> Not a monster compiler, not the linux kernel, but a code generator you
> can hack around as you wish.
>
>
> > And of cause I see also the compilation of Seed7 as acid test.
>
> Obviously.
>
> > A C compiler + run-time library that can support Seed7 is
> > a good (and correct) C compiler.
>
> Probably. You do not test the whole language however,
Of cause, but the Seed7 test suite contains many tests with corner
cases (maximum and minimum values, NaN, Infinity, etc.) of different
operations. Seed7 is compiled to C and many simple Seed7 expressions
are compiled to corresponding simple C expressions. The Seed7 test
suite is not intended to be a C test suite, but I have found bugs
with this test suite in several C compilers. I need up to a day to
create a small C test program from the code generated by the Seed7
compiler. The prime objective of the generated C code is not the
readability by humans. :-)
> ... and any compiler
> is bound to have problems. The set all possible C programs is quite
> infinite.
>
> There are several C compilers
> > that failed to compile Seed7 correctly:
> >
>
> {snip}
>
> > - lcc-win32: Compiles after I provided the missing functions
> > _wchdir, _wgetcwd, _wmkdir, _wrmdir, _wrename,
> > _wremove, _wchmod, _wcsicmp (Note that this are
> > windows functions, POSIX does NOT know them).
> > The interpreter runs, but there are issues
> > (see testlcc*.c from previous discussions).
>
> You say you "provided", but not to me, as far as I remember.
Correct, I used them internally in my attempts to compile with lcc-win.
They are just hacked together to progress, and I made no test suite
the test their functionality. Therefore they are not part of the Seed7
release now. They are licensed with the LGPL. Hopefully you can use
LGPL licensed code. It you are interested I can send the file to you.
> For your
> application you wrote the missing stuff and added it to your software.
>
> OK.
>
> I provided the C compiler for free. Modulo the few bugs reported, the
> thing is running.
>
>
> > - lcc-win64: With several hickups (and the same functions
> > as above) the compile succeeds. But there are
> > still missing functions and an error:
> > fil_win.obj .text: undefined reference to '_open_osfhandle'
>
> That's a windows function. I think microsoft deprecated it in 64 bits,
> in any case it is not a bug in lcc-win.
AFAIK _open_osfhandle associates a C run-time file descriptor with
an existing operating-system file handle. Windows functions such as
CreateProcess work with file handles. To get a FILE pointer I use
code like:
HANDLE aHandle;
FILE *aFile;
...
aFile = fdopen(_open_osfhandle((intPtrType) aHandle, _O_TEXT), "w");
Without _open_osfhandle and fdopen this is not possible. I searched
a little bit in the internet and I did not find something that
says they are deprecated.
At least the 32-bit run-time of lcc-win contained _open_osfhandle
and fdopen.
> > fil_win.obj .text: undefined reference to '_close'
I use _close also in the conversion from a file handle to a FILE pointer.
If _open_osfhandle succeeds and fdopen fails I use _close to close
the result of _open_osfhandle.
> Those are deprecated. All files are buffered or unbuffer with setvbuf,
> but no small integer ids any more. The C standard doesn't mention them,
> and in windows they aren't as popular as in Unix. So they aren't there.
Without them there should be an alternate way to convert a file handle
to a file pointer. It would be okay if I can convert:
file handle --> FILE *
instead of
file handle --> file descriptor --> FILE *
> > fil_win.obj .text: undefined reference to 'fdopen'
>
> I wrote that in 64 bits as far as I remember. Which version are you
> using by the way? Last time we spoke about this I told you to reload.
> Did you reload?
I just downloaded lcc-win64 from
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/lccwin64.exe
and I get the same result as before.
> > Error: call to __WSAFDIsSet missing __declspec(dllimport). Fix impossible
>
> That's your error. Your program did not provide the
> __declspec(dllimport) for that function, and the code generated supposes
> it is a library function, not inside a dll. The generated code will not
> work and linking fails.
I did neither define nor call a function named __WSAFDIsSet.
Why should I provide the __declspec(dllimport) for that function?
From the prefix (WSA) I guess that it has to do with winsockets.
A file in my sources includes winsock2.h and I use the linker to link
with ws2_32.lib. Thats it.
> This is not a bug, it is a feature. No crashes at run time. The linker
> stops.
Fine, but is it really necessary that I provide the __declspec(dllimport)
for __WSAFDIsSet although it is nowhere in my sources?
> > Error: call to __WSAFDIsSet missing __declspec(dllimport). Fix impossible
> > Error: call to __WSAFDIsSet missing __declspec(dllimport). Fix impossible
> > Error: call to __WSAFDIsSet missing __declspec(dllimport). Fix impossible
> > Link failed. Removing ..\bin\s7.exe
> >
> > One question: Do you have a test suite for your compiler?
> >
>
> Of course not. That's a bad compiler done by an amateur that doesn't
> have a clue. You found 3 bugs that you think are important. May I remind
> you that there is no obligation for my part to have the same priorities
> like you?
Sorry to make you angry.
I thought there are official C compiler test suites to test conformance
to e.g. C90 or C99.
> > This time no test programs for lcc-win:
> >
>
> Thank you.
>
> It would be nice if you did not feel like taking that offended tone.
Sorry, that my tone sounds offending.
It is not my intention to be offending.
I apologize.
> If
> you think that the author of lcc-win has no test suite because you
> discover some bugs somewhere in obscure situations, you are entitled to
> get your money back.
>
> :-)
>
> I do what I can OK?
>
> And I do have bugs.
>
> And I do fix them when I find time for it.
Thank you very much.
Regards,
Thomas Mertes
--
Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net
Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements
and operators, abstract data types, templates without special
syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed,
interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 13:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <obioju$ba2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107457 |
On 30/03/17 09:34, mertesthomas@gmail.com wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 01:02:45 UTC+2 schrieb jacobnavia: >> Le 29/03/2017 à 18:56, mertesthomas a écrit : >>> One question: Do you have a test suite for your compiler? >>> >> >> Of course not. That's a bad compiler done by an amateur that doesn't >> have a clue. You found 3 bugs that you think are important. May I remind >> you that there is no obligation for my part to have the same priorities >> like you? > > Sorry to make you angry. (I can't understand why Jacob reacted like this, but sometimes it seems that he misinterprets the tone of posts.) > I thought there are official C compiler test suites to test conformance > to e.g. C90 or C99. > There are, such as <http://www.plumhall.com/suites.html>. They are not "official" in that they have no direct connection to the standards committees, but they are viewed as the closest thing there is to an industry standard for compiler test suites. As you can probably imagine, Plum Hall suites are not cheap - I expect they are well beyond the budget that Jacob would have for such testing. I have not heard of any free or cheap general C compiler test suites - the compilers I know of usually have their own test suites that they build up over time with new tests for new features, and regression tests after bug fixes. I know that there are people who regularly run Plum Hall on gcc, and the results of these are used in the development of gcc, but due to the costs and licenses involved if you want to see a Plum Hall compliance report on gcc, you have to pay for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 00:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <objv12$iks$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107457 |
Le 30/03/2017 à 09:34, mertesthomas@gmail.com a écrit : > I did neither define nor call a function named __WSAFDIsSet. > Why should I provide the __declspec(dllimport) for that function? Well... I do not know but the linker is pointing to a reference to it. Do a link generating a map file and look it up. It could be that the reference comes from somewhere in a library you are using. What network library you use? (or from lcc-win it could be my bug). Microsoft says: Remarks Windows Phone 8: This function is supported for Windows Phone Store apps on Windows Phone 8 and later. Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2: This function is supported for Windows Store apps on Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 R2, and later. Requirements Minimum supported client Windows 8.1, Windows Vista [desktop apps | Windows Store apps] Minimum supported server Windows Server 2003 [desktop apps | Windows Store apps] Minimum supported phone Windows Phone 8 Header Winsock2.h Library Ws2_32.lib DLL Ws2_32.dll It could be that you are using a library that can't run in your machine, it is network function that is supported only in windows 8 and higher. https://msdn.microsoft.com/fr-fr/library/windows/desktop/ms741578(v=vs.85).aspx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mertesthomas@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 00:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29ab4ccd-fa40-461f-9fd0-3f2c990d4368@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #107525 |
Am Freitag, 31. März 2017 00:00:59 UTC+2 schrieb jacobnavia: > Le 30/03/2017 à 09:34, mertesthomas a écrit : > > I did neither define nor call a function named __WSAFDIsSet. > > Why should I provide the __declspec(dllimport) for that function? > > Well... I do not know but the linker is pointing to a reference to it. > Do a link generating a map file and look it up. > > It could be that the reference comes from somewhere in a library you are > using. What network library you use? ws2_32.lib > (or from lcc-win it could be my bug). > > Microsoft says: > > Remarks > > Windows Phone 8: This function is supported for Windows Phone Store apps > on Windows Phone 8 and later. > Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2: This function is supported for > Windows Store apps on Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 R2, and later. > Requirements > > Minimum supported client > Windows 8.1, Windows Vista [desktop apps | Windows Store apps] > Minimum supported server > Windows Server 2003 [desktop apps | Windows Store apps] > Minimum supported phone > Windows Phone 8 > Header > Winsock2.h > Library > Ws2_32.lib > DLL > Ws2_32.dll > > It could be that you are using a library that can't run in your machine, > it is network function that is supported only in windows 8 and higher. > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/fr-fr/library/windows/desktop/ms741578(v=vs.85).aspx This page includes the description: The __WSAFDIsSet function specifies whether a socket is included in a set of socket descriptors. and under "See also" there is a reference to select and fd_set. An fd_set is used as parameter for select(). Under Unix fd_set originally was a 32- or 64-bit bit-set. Under windows fd_set is not organized as bit-set, but as array. Officially an fd_set can be manipulated with the macros/functions: void FD_CLR(int fd, fd_set *set); int FD_ISSET(int fd, fd_set *set); void FD_SET(int fd, fd_set *set); void FD_ZERO(fd_set *set); I use this macros/functions to manipulate an fd_set. I looked into the headers of MinGW and expected to find out that starting with windows 8 FD_ISSET is implemented with __WSAFDIsSet. This is not the case: The MinGW headers always define FD_ISSET with __WSAFDIsSet. No version check with #if etc. Probably __WSAFDIsSet was undocumented and starting with windows 8 they document it. Btw.: I use also the possibility to enlarge the definition of fd_set by defining FD_SETSIZE before including winsock2.h. Hopefully that works with lcc-win. Regards, Thomas Mertes -- Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements and operators, abstract data types, templates without special syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed, interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mertesthomas@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 00:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76f808aa-c6bf-4945-a646-2a9c531b396d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #107408 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 08:05:18 UTC+2 schrieb robert...@yahoo.com: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 01:02:05 +0200, jacobnavia > <jacob> wrote: > > >> - lcc-win32: Compiles after I provided the missing functions > >> _wchdir, _wgetcwd, _wmkdir, _wrmdir, _wrename, > >> _wremove, _wchmod, _wcsicmp (Note that this are > >> windows functions, POSIX does NOT know them). > >> The interpreter runs, but there are issues > >> (see testlcc*.c from previous discussions). > > > >You say you "provided", but not to me, as far as I remember. For your > >application you wrote the missing stuff and added it to your software. > > > >OK. > > > >I provided the C compiler for free. Modulo the few bugs reported, the > >thing is running. > > > > > >> - lcc-win64: With several hickups (and the same functions > >> as above) the compile succeeds. But there are > >> still missing functions and an error: > >> fil_win.obj .text: undefined reference to '_open_osfhandle' > > > >That's a windows function. I think microsoft deprecated it in 64 bits, > >in any case it is not a bug in lcc-win. > > > To be picky, it's a CRT/CLib function, not part of Windows API. It's > still supported in 64-bit code. The POSIX equivalent is fileno. No, _open_osfhandle does: file handle --> file descriptor and fileno does: FILE pointer --> file descriptor > In POSIX, the opposite translation is done by fdopen. The function fdopen does: file descriptor --> FILE pointer Finally there is _get_osfhandle, which does: file descriptor --> file handle > ... The Windows > version of that, _fdopen, does something a bit different, it turns an > fd from _open into a FILE. Going from a system HANDLE to a CRT FILE > is done with _open_ofshandle. I *think* there was some way to do that > before _open_ofshandle existed (I seem to recall creating an fd from a > HANDLE, then _fdopen'ing that), but that was a long time ago. > > Both pairs of those functions need to be in the CRT, since the OS > doesn't know how to create a FILE structure. That's what I said elsethread: _open_osfhandle and fdopen is needed to do: file handle --> file descriptor --> FILE pointer Interestingly lcc-win64 seems to provide fileno and _get_osfhandle (at least I don't get error messages from them) and the other half of this conversion functions (_open_osfhandle and fdopen) are missing. Regards, Thomas Mertes -- Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements and operators, abstract data types, templates without special syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed, interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web