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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #73670 > unrolled thread

Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows

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

Contents

  Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-24 13:56 +1300
    Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Cal Dershowitz <Cal@example.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:02 -0700
      Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-10-24 17:43 +0200
        Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-24 13:08 -0700
          Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-10-25 09:23 +0100
            Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 08:31 +0000
              Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-10-25 12:13 +0100
                Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 13:23 +0000
                Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 13:52 -0500
            Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-25 11:08 -0400
            Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-25 12:14 -0700
              Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-25 19:35 +0000
                Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 20:10 +0000
                  Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-10-25 16:29 -0400
                    Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 20:51 +0000
                      Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 20:55 +0000
                        Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 20:59 +0000
                      Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-10-25 17:24 -0400
                        Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 21:53 +0000
                          Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-10-25 18:02 -0400
                            Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 22:11 +0000
                              Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-26 03:01 -0700
                                Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-26 10:21 +0000
                                  Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-26 03:31 -0700
                  Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-25 20:31 +0000
                    Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-25 13:44 -0700
                    Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-25 20:58 +0000
                      Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-25 17:09 -0400
                        Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-26 10:44 +1300
                  Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-25 13:32 -0700
                  Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-26 02:46 -0700
                    Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-26 10:20 +0000
      Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-20 10:41 +0000
        Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-20 11:14 +0000
          Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 03:31 -0800
            Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-20 12:13 +0000
            Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-20 14:28 +0000
              Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-20 14:47 +0000
              Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 07:13 -0800
      Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2015-11-20 07:54 -0500
        Re: Slightly OT but interesting for those who want modern C on windows Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2015-11-20 09:35 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#73810

On 25/10/15 22:02, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 10/25/2015 5:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 25/10/15 21:24, Eric Sosman wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2015 4:51 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 25/10/15 20:29, Eric Sosman wrote:
>>>>> On 10/25/2015 4:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or
>>>>>> clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an
>>>>>> attack.
>>>>>
>>>>>      ... and usually is.
>>>>
>>>> I hope and trust that you're joking. When you post corrections to my
>>>> articles, I consider it a favour, not an attack. Am I being naive?
>>>
>>>      Why must you ALWAYS twist EVERYTHING?  Where do YOU get off, trying
>>> to accuse ME of making attacks?  "Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I
>>> swear to God I will see you in court."
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> [Update on the original thread from which you are quoting: almost six
>> years on, he still hasn't initiated proceedings.]
>
>      Update on the update: He's extremely unlikely to initiate them
> now, as he's busy with other matters at the moment.
>
> http://www.legacy.com/Obituaries.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonId=168577612
>
> I don't rejoice at his demise, but I confess I'm glad he's gone silent.

I had no idea.

To mourn the death of loved ones is natural. To mourn the death of one 
for whom I had no respect whatsoever is more of a challenge. 
Nevertheless, as John Donne said: "Any man's death diminishes me". So I 
am sorry to hear of his passing. Like you, however, I do not miss his 
"contributions" to Usenet.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#73833

On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 10:11:52 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 25/10/15 22:02, Eric Sosman wrote:
> ≈
> > I don't rejoice at his demise, but I confess I'm glad he's gone silent.
> 
> I had no idea.
> 
I was in contact with him until shortly before the end.

We too must follow him some day.

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

#73836

On 26/10/15 10:01, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 10:11:52 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 25/10/15 22:02, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> ≈
>>> I don't rejoice at his demise, but I confess I'm glad he's gone silent.
>>
>> I had no idea.
>>
> I was in contact with him until shortly before the end.
>
> We too must follow him some day.

I hope you'll excuse my saying so, but I have other plans.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#73838

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:21:50 AM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 26/10/15 10:01, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 10:11:52 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 25/10/15 22:02, Eric Sosman wrote:
> >> ≈
> >>> I don't rejoice at his demise, but I confess I'm glad he's gone silent.
> >>
> >> I had no idea.
> >>
> > I was in contact with him until shortly before the end.
> >
> > We too must follow him some day.
> 
> I hope you'll excuse my saying so, but I have other plans.
> 
Edward was born a Roman Catholic and was pious as a child.

He subsequently changed his views and became a militant left wing
atheist activist. 

But shortly before his death he reconciled with the Church and received
the last sacraments.

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

#73787

On 25/10/2015 20:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 25/10/15 19:35, Bartc wrote:
>> On 25/10/2015 19:14, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:

>>>> Keith Thompson and many people in this group attack lcc-win since at
>>>> lest 15 years. There is no point in answering them.
>>>
>>> I quoted your own words.  It was not an attack, and I have no idea how
>>> you reached the conclusion that it was.
>>
>> The attack was that you felt obliged to post about it.
>
> That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or
> clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an
> attack.

Well, it seems to happen every time (apparently for the last 15 years).

>> Anyone who clicks
>> on the link can find out for themselves.
>
> True enough. Or they could simply read Keith's reply and find out that
> way.

Keith's reply drew particular attention to that aspect and nothing else.

>> It wasn't anyway clear that the poster wanted a free C compiler;
>> more like a C compiler that comes in a free version that could later
 >> [be] upgraded.
>
> What is a "free version that could later upgraded" [sic] if not a free C
> compiler? Do you think that a free version that could later be upgraded
> is not free?

Plenty of software comes in free versions that can be upgraded or 
uncrippled by paying extra. Even if commercial use is envisaged, it is 
handy to be able to try something out without financial commitment.

-- 
Bartc

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

#73789

Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 25/10/2015 20:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 25/10/15 19:35, Bartc wrote:
[...]
>>> Anyone who clicks
>>> on the link can find out for themselves.
>>
>> True enough. Or they could simply read Keith's reply and find out that
>> way.
>
> Keith's reply drew particular attention to that aspect and nothing else.

Yes, because that's all I had to say about it.

It.  Was.  Not.  An.  Attack.

-- 
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]

#73792

On 25/10/15 20:31, Bartc wrote:
> On 25/10/2015 20:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 25/10/15 19:35, Bartc wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2015 19:14, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>
>>>>> Keith Thompson and many people in this group attack lcc-win since at
>>>>> lest 15 years. There is no point in answering them.
>>>>
>>>> I quoted your own words.  It was not an attack, and I have no idea how
>>>> you reached the conclusion that it was.
>>>
>>> The attack was that you felt obliged to post about it.
>>
>> That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or
>> clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an
>> attack.
>
> Well, it seems to happen every time (apparently for the last 15 years).

Are you suggesting that if misleading information is posted sufficiently 
often, it no longer needs to be corrected?

>
>>> Anyone who clicks
>>> on the link can find out for themselves.
>>
>> True enough. Or they could simply read Keith's reply and find out that
>> way.
>
> Keith's reply drew particular attention to that aspect and nothing else.

What else was there to say about it?

>>> It wasn't anyway clear that the poster wanted a free C compiler;
>>> more like a C compiler that comes in a free version that could later
>  >> [be] upgraded.
>>
>> What is a "free version that could later upgraded" [sic] if not a free C
>> compiler? Do you think that a free version that could later be upgraded
>> is not free?
>
> Plenty of software comes in free versions that can be upgraded or
> uncrippled by paying extra. Even if commercial use is envisaged, it is
> handy to be able to try something out without financial commitment.

Is that a yes or a no?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#73794

On 10/25/2015 04:58 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 25/10/15 20:31, Bartc wrote:
>> On 25/10/2015 20:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 25/10/15 19:35, Bartc wrote:
>>>> On 25/10/2015 19:14, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>>
>>>>>> Keith Thompson and many people in this group attack lcc-win since at
>>>>>> lest 15 years. There is no point in answering them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I quoted your own words.  It was not an attack, and I have no idea how
>>>>> you reached the conclusion that it was.
>>>>
>>>> The attack was that you felt obliged to post about it.
>>>
>>> That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or
>>> clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an
>>> attack.
>>
>> Well, it seems to happen every time (apparently for the last 15 years).
> 
> Are you suggesting that if misleading information is posted sufficiently 
> often, it no longer needs to be corrected?

I doubt that jacob's response was intentionally misleading; he might not
have even considered the possibility that Cal had a commercial use in
mind (and we still don't know whether he does).

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

#73800

James Kuyper wrote:
> On 10/25/2015 04:58 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 25/10/15 20:31, Bartc wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2015 20:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 25/10/15 19:35, Bartc wrote:
>>>>> On 25/10/2015 19:14, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>>>
>>>>>>> Keith Thompson and many people in this group attack lcc-win since at
>>>>>>> lest 15 years. There is no point in answering them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I quoted your own words.  It was not an attack, and I have no idea how
>>>>>> you reached the conclusion that it was.
>>>>>
>>>>> The attack was that you felt obliged to post about it.
>>>>
>>>> That's an untenable claim. If it were true, any correction or
>>>> clarification that anyone posts on any subject could be considered an
>>>> attack.
>>>
>>> Well, it seems to happen every time (apparently for the last 15 years).
>>
>> Are you suggesting that if misleading information is posted sufficiently
>> often, it no longer needs to be corrected?
>
> I doubt that jacob's response was intentionally misleading; he might not
> have even considered the possibility that Cal had a commercial use in
> mind (and we still don't know whether he does).
>

...Oh dear, what have I started...

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#73788

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 25/10/15 19:35, Bartc wrote:
[...]
>> It wasn't anyway clear that the poster wanted a free C compiler;
>
> If you re-read the OP in context, you will see that he is asking
> whether Microsoft supplies a free version of Clang for Windows 7. So
> not only did the OP want a free C compiler, but he specifically wanted
> a free C compiler *from Microsoft*, so Jacob Navia's reply didn't even
> answer the question.

Now that I re-read the original question, I believe you're right.
On the other hand, someone asking about a specific free C compiler
from Microsoft for Windows 7 might well be interested in knowing
about another free C compiler from a source other than Microsoft
for Windows 7.

There's nothing wrong with providing additional information, even
if it doesn't directly answer the question as it was asked.

Which is, of course, exactly what I did in my alleged "attack".

Bart, the OP asked about free compilers.  I do not know exactly what
his requirements are for a compiler to be considered sufficiently
"free" for his purposes.  Both jacob and I provided some information
that could help the OP decide whether or not lcc-win meets his
requirements.

And for the record, I have no problem with jacob charging money
for commercial users of his compiler, and I don't believe I've ever
written anything here that would imply that I do.

-- 
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]

#73832

On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 8:11:12 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> What is a "free version that could later upgraded" [sic] if not a free C 
> compiler? Do you think that a free version that could later be upgraded 
> is not free?
> 
The question is how usable the crippleware offer is.

MSVC express comes without a decent resource compiler. But if you know how, you
can still write the resource script file manually. And smart programmers will use the
much more powerful Baby X resource compiler anyway, which does automatic
format conversion and scaling.

However if you don't have the knowledge about how to get round the sabotage, a
compiler that can't import resources at all isn't any good for anything much.

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

#73835

On 26/10/15 09:46, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 8:11:12 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> What is a "free version that could later upgraded" [sic] if not a free C
>> compiler? Do you think that a free version that could later be upgraded
>> is not free?
>>
> The question is how usable the crippleware offer is.

I don't believe it was, you know. I believe the intent of the question 
was to determine whether Microsoft offer a free C version of the Clang 
compiler. Here is my evidence for that belief:

Cal wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 5:56 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/21/microsoft_promises_clang_for_windows_in_november_visual_c_update/
>>
>>
>> "Developers will also welcome Clang because of its better standards
>> compliance compared with Visual C++, for C as well as C++. Microsoft
>> Engineering Manager Steve Carroll (from the front-end team), who also
>> spoke at CPPCon, explained that while Microsoft’s support of the C99 and
>> C11 standards is already much improved, Clang/C2 will complete it."
>>
>
> Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be something to upgrade from?

I deduce from the above that Cal is asking about a free C version of 
Microsoft's compiler for Windows 7. The answer to that question is "kind 
of". See http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml for details. 
The Community version of Visual Studio is free for individuals to use, 
and this includes the development of programs for sale. See 
https://www.visualstudio.com/support/legal/dn877550 for details. Large 
organisations ("enterprises") are, however, expected to cough up.

> MSVC express comes without a decent resource compiler.

He was asking about a C compiler, not a resource compiler.

<snip>

> However if you don't have the knowledge about how to get round the sabotage, a
> compiler that can't import resources at all isn't any good for anything much.

The "Community" version of Visual Studio would appear to meet his needs. 
It can certainly act as a C compiler (although, like many C compiler 
vendors, it looks like Microsoft haven't bothered to keep pace with ISO 
in all respects), and it even appears to be capable of facilitating the 
creation of Windows programs, which suggests that it can handle resource 
editing.

As you know full well, Malcolm, I have no axe to grind here. I am 
probably one of Microsoft's less enthusiastic supporters (in the sense 
that if they were to go bankrupt tomorrow, I would be throwing a wild 
party by tomorrow evening at the latest). I am not promoting their 
product, just pointing out its existence as an answer to the OP's 
question. I haven't even used the "Community" product, and have no idea 
whether it's a peach or a lemon. But it does exist, and it does appear 
to meet the requirements he has given.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#76615

Cal Dershowitz <Cal@example.invalid> wrote:

> On 10/23/2015 5:56 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/21/microsoft_promises_clang_for_windows_in_november_visual_c_update/
> >
> > "Developers will also welcome Clang because of its better standards
> > compliance compared with Visual C++, for C as well as C++. Microsoft
> > Engineering Manager Steve Carroll (from the front-end team), who also
> > spoke at CPPCon, explained that while Microsoft’s support of the C99 and
> > C11 standards is already much improved, Clang/C2 will complete it."
> 
> Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be 
> something to upgrade from?

If you're still looking for one, not from Microsoft, I just tried
installing Pelles C (a free LCC implementation with IDE) on Win7, and it
worked fine. I haven't tried any full-sized projects yet, but I see no
reason why they shouldn't work.

Richard

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

#76618

On 20/11/2015 10:41, Richard Bos wrote:
> Cal Dershowitz <Cal@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 10/23/2015 5:56 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/21/microsoft_promises_clang_for_windows_in_november_visual_c_update/
>>>
>>> "Developers will also welcome Clang because of its better standards
>>> compliance compared with Visual C++, for C as well as C++. Microsoft
>>> Engineering Manager Steve Carroll (from the front-end team), who also
>>> spoke at CPPCon, explained that while Microsoft’s support of the C99 and
>>> C11 standards is already much improved, Clang/C2 will complete it."
>>
>> Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be
>> something to upgrade from?
>
> If you're still looking for one, not from Microsoft, I just tried
> installing Pelles C (a free LCC implementation with IDE) on Win7, and it
> worked fine. I haven't tried any full-sized projects yet, but I see no
> reason why they shouldn't work.

It largely works but has a habit of generating bizarre compiler errors.

The following code, for example, compiled for a 32-bit target and with 
optimise on (/Ot), generates:

"fatal error #3001: Register pressure too high; try to rearrange the code"

(When I first came across this, I upgraded, and the error went away. 
Then it appeared again on the next file I compiled! I had to solve it by 
rearranging the code...)

typedef struct{
     int* iptr;
     long long value;
} rec;

int main(void){
rec *p, *q;
int mask;

(*(p)->iptr)=(*(p)->iptr) & (~mask) | (q->value & mask);
}


-- 
Bartc

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

#76622

Bartc wrote:
> (*(p)->iptr)=(*(p)->iptr) & (~mask) | (q->value & mask);

Why the () around *(p)->iptr to the left of = ?

And is it (*p)->iptr, or *(p->iptr) or ... ?

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#76627

On 20/11/2015 11:31, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Bartc wrote:
>> (*(p)->iptr)=(*(p)->iptr) & (~mask) | (q->value & mask);
>
> Why the () around *(p)->iptr to the left of = ?

Just extra insurance.

> And is it (*p)->iptr, or *(p->iptr) or ... ?

Actually, I don't know what they mean!

By experimenting (via adding and removing parentheses and seeing if it 
still compiles), I can see that:

  *(p)->iptr means the same as *(p->iptr).

But (*p)->iptr is something different. (*p yields a 'rec' type, for 
which -> is not appropropriate_

I can understand now why people want to simplify this stuff.

(In the original source, it's just:

   p^.iptr^

No parentheses needed and you just read it left to right. ^ is a postfix 
dereference operator.)

-- 
Bartc

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

#76632

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes:

> Bartc wrote:
>> (*(p)->iptr)=(*(p)->iptr) & (~mask) | (q->value & mask);
>
> Why the () around *(p)->iptr to the left of = ?

A lot of BartC's code is automatically generated and it's often easier
to put in parentheses than is is to generate the minimal bracketing.

> And is it (*p)->iptr, or *(p->iptr) or ... ?

(*(p)->iptr) means *(p->iptr).  (*p)->iptr would not make sense here if,
as seems likely, iptr is a pointer.

-- 
Ben.

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

#76635

On 20/11/2015 14:28, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Bartc wrote:
>>> (*(p)->iptr)=(*(p)->iptr) & (~mask) | (q->value & mask);
>>
>> Why the () around *(p)->iptr to the left of = ?
>
> A lot of BartC's code is automatically generated and it's often easier
> to put in parentheses than is is to generate the minimal bracketing.

Yes, except the above was written by hand in an effort to simplify!

Which was quite a job actually as the original was:

(*(p)->iptr)=(i32)((i64)((*(p)->iptr)&(i32)~mask)|((q)->value & (i64)mask));

(Some of the extra casts are promotions, narrowings and conversions that 
C might do anyway, but it likes to spell it out. 'mask' was actually 
unsigned so needs a cast.)

-- 
Bartc

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

#76638

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 9:28:53 AM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Bartc wrote:
> >> (*(p)->iptr)=(*(p)->iptr) & (~mask) | (q->value & mask);
> >
> > Why the () around *(p)->iptr to the left of = ?
> 
> A lot of BartC's code is automatically generated and it's often easier
> to put in parentheses than is is to generate the minimal bracketing.
> 
> > And is it (*p)->iptr, or *(p->iptr) or ... ?
> 
> (*(p)->iptr) means *(p->iptr).  (*p)->iptr would not make sense here if,
> as seems likely, iptr is a pointer.

I use the (*p)->iptr syntax a lot because I pass pointer-to-pointers to
functions which allow the called function to set it to NULL (if it's being
deleted, for example).  As such, I can test for a valid value using:

    if (p && *p)
    {
        // Code goes here
    }

And then in my delete algorithm, if it's only a few lines I use this:

    if (p && *p)
    {
        // Delete it's allocated child
        free((*p)->ptr);

        // Delete self
        free(*p);
        *p = NULL;
    }

If it's more than a few lines I use this:

    SWhatever* t;

    if (p && (t = *p))
    {
        // Delete it's allocated child things
        free(t->ptr1);
        free(t->ptr2);
        free(t->ptr3);

        // Delete self
        free(t);
        *p = NULL;
    }


And so on.  But, I usually try to only put parenthesis around where it
make sense, so the extra parenthesis on Bart's example threw me.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#76629

On 10/24/2015 12:02 AM, Cal Dershowitz wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 5:56 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/21/microsoft_promises_clang_for_windows_in_november_visual_c_update/
>>
>>
>>
>> "Developers will also welcome Clang because of its better standards
>> compliance compared with Visual C++, for C as well as C++. Microsoft
>> Engineering Manager Steve Carroll (from the front-end team), who also
>> spoke at CPPCon, explained that while Microsoft’s support of the C99 and
>> C11 standards is already much improved, Clang/C2 will complete it."
>>
> 
> Is there a (free) C version now for windows 7, so that there can be
> something to upgrade from?
In view of the comments referred to above that the (free) Microsoft
VS2015 Community should support C now, I started trying to build a
benchmark with it.  Unfortunately, the OpenMP support is still at OpenMP
2.0 (or less?).  Even after inserting a bunch of #if _OPENMP >= 201307
guards, I still had to give up on that account.
It did indicate progress, that I didn't get hung up on any plain C99
stuff, other than requiring -Drestrict=__restrict .
I found it necessary to install the Microsoft sdksetup and persuade
VS2015 to switch over to those September 2015 includes and libraries.
As far as I know, this provides all the "windows 10" labeled stuff which
would be required on win7.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web