Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #70600 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-16 06:18 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-09-17 17:06 +0200 |
| Articles | 18 on this page of 138 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 06:18 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 17:06 +1200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 08:00 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-16 09:00 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 02:03 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-16 11:20 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 13:08 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-16 13:26 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 17:47 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 09:37 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:41 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-17 07:06 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:22 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-16 23:13 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:35 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-16 18:12 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 13:18 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 08:47 -0700
Re: Quoting Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 20:30 +0200
Re: Quoting Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 11:41 -0700
Re: Quoting Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 20:53 +0200
Re: Quoting Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 12:19 -0700
Re: Quoting Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 21:49 +0200
Re: Quoting Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 13:24 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-16 18:14 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:22 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-16 18:29 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:31 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 12:48 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:56 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 13:09 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 23:41 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 18:05 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 12:13 -0500
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 10:13 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:01 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 10:02 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 13:53 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:10 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 10:33 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:40 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 12:50 -0500
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:55 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 13:57 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 11:02 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 20:50 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 12:20 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 23:33 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 17:52 -0400
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:03 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:30 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 00:26 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-16 21:24 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 05:48 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-17 07:16 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 17:00 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-17 11:23 -0700
MSVC deprecation (was Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 23:31 -0700
Re: MSVC deprecation (was Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet) Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-17 07:33 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-17 11:46 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 22:26 +1200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-17 11:17 +0000
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-17 13:33 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 13:56 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-17 14:20 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-17 13:28 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-17 15:18 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-17 13:34 +0000
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-17 12:29 +0000
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-17 05:34 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 14:48 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 08:52 -0400
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 08:50 -0400
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-17 12:57 +0000
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 13:52 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 07:13 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 07:42 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 07:55 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 05:51 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 16:27 -0400
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-16 23:35 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 00:36 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 08:09 +0200
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 07:59 +0100
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-17 01:13 -0700
Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 13:08 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-16 23:22 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-09-17 08:57 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-17 15:28 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 09:45 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-09-17 22:56 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-18 10:19 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 23:01 -0500
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-18 10:20 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-18 09:23 +0100
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-18 14:08 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-18 08:48 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2015-09-18 16:44 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-18 17:33 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2015-09-19 21:12 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-21 09:10 +0000
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-21 09:16 +0000
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 08:34 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 09:33 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 10:43 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 12:29 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 13:10 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 13:42 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 14:04 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-16 14:34 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 15:01 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-09-16 22:26 -0400
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-17 13:46 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 12:48 +0100
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-19 12:40 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-21 09:14 +0000
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-21 06:13 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-21 17:39 +0100
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-10-02 13:21 +0000
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-02 13:25 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-10-04 13:51 +0000
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-04 15:45 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-16 21:39 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-17 00:42 +0100
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 07:34 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 23:55 -0500
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 13:03 -0500
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:31 +1200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 11:06 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-16 21:17 +1200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 11:56 +0200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 08:59 -0700
Re: "gcc" on OS X Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-16 21:43 +0200
Re: "gcc" on OS X Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-16 13:20 -0700
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 08:25 +1200
Re: Compiling C project for Windows and Mac OS X (GCC for Linux) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-17 11:21 +0000
Re: gcc not a symlink on Mac OS X Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-17 17:06 +0200
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-02 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnh9m910hd.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #71013 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 10:14:32 AM UTC+1, Richard Bos wrote:
>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
>> > Use lcc-win instead :-)
>>
>> Is it _fully_ conforming out-of-the-box?
>>
>> Including having no extensions turned on?
>>
> lcc-win is essentially conforming in default mode. However some
> of the extensions might break carefully contrived by valid
> C programs - there's no easy way round that, as the supposed
> mechanisms for extension are too cumbersome to give to
> an application-level programmer.
If I recall correctly, lcc-win has a "-ansic" (sp?) option intended to
enable C99 conformance. That suggests it's not conforming by default.
(This is an observation, not a criticism.)
--
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]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 13:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <56112dc9.514062@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #71641 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 10:14:32 AM UTC+1, Richard Bos wrote: > >> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote: > >> > Use lcc-win instead :-) > >> > >> Is it _fully_ conforming out-of-the-box? > >> > >> Including having no extensions turned on? > >> > > lcc-win is essentially conforming in default mode. However some > > of the extensions might break carefully contrived by valid > > C programs - there's no easy way round that, as the supposed > > mechanisms for extension are too cumbersome to give to > > an application-level programmer. > > If I recall correctly, lcc-win has a "-ansic" (sp?) option intended to > enable C99 conformance. That suggests it's not conforming by default. > (This is an observation, not a criticism.) Precisely; I don't mean to say lcc-win is deficient because it needs an option to be ISO-conformant. I'm merely pointing out that it's _not better_ than M$VS in this regard, and therefore not useful _instead_ of VS for this purpose alone. I don't mean to imply that it's _worse_. Nor that it's better _or_ worse in other regards. (Also, for the record, I don't think I know any common C compilers that are _completely_ ISO-conformant as their default mode. I know a few that can be made close-enough-to-conformant-for-my-purposes with only a few tweaks to the defaults, but none that are completely conforming out of the box.) Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 15:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnwpv2w8vi.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #71806 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
[...]
>> If I recall correctly, lcc-win has a "-ansic" (sp?) option intended to
>> enable C99 conformance. That suggests it's not conforming by default.
>> (This is an observation, not a criticism.)
>
> Precisely; I don't mean to say lcc-win is deficient because it needs an
> option to be ISO-conformant. I'm merely pointing out that it's _not
> better_ than M$VS in this regard, and therefore not useful _instead_ of
> VS for this purpose alone. I don't mean to imply that it's _worse_. Nor
> that it's better _or_ worse in other regards.
Except that lcc-win with appropriate options attempts to conform to C99
(I haven't heard about any C11 support) whereas MSVS only attempts to
conform to C90.
[...]
--
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]
| From | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 21:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7fgkva90t58r2tds9nmmt1idaqvbd5lvrn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70733 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:01:42 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >But I'd like to ask others here to confirm your observations. > >Other uses of Microsoft Visual Studio: If you compile a simple >program that calls strcpy() with default settings, does it really >treat it as a fatal error? > >My suspicion, Malcolm, is that you've modified the settings in >Visual Studio to perform stricter checking than the out-of-the-box >default, and that the actual default behavior is to issue a warning, >not a fatal error. > VS2010 and VS1013 set it to non-fatal by default. (/WX-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 00:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <G7nKx.377802$yK.81900@fx44.am4> |
| In reply to | #70682 |
On 16/09/2015 20:29, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 6:44:00 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Malcolm McLean<malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> Are you saying that a program containing a call to strcpy() actually >> doesn't compile using Microsoft's compiler? If so, I believe you're >> mistaken. >> > I got a Microsoft compiler in front of me, and I can assure you that > with the default settings, a call to strcpy() is treated as fatal. What about when you invoke the compiler in conforming mode? > You can turn the behaviour of by defining _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS, > but it's made slightly difficult, I'd guess deliberately. Then that's easy - just define it. When I want Microsoft's advice on security, I'll ask for it. > If a customer says "avoiding security exploits is important to me, > I want that behaviour on" then of course code calling strcpy() is > useless to him. You can write your equivalent mystrcpy(), which > achieves nothing in terms of avoiding buffer overruns, but shuts > up the warning. If a customer says "avoiding security exploits is important to me", then you say "right, so let's make sure we write the code properly and not rely on falsely warm feelings generated by a stupid compiler switch". -- 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]
| From | Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 07:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9eddc-2tu.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> |
| In reply to | #70758 |
[snips] On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:42:29 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 16/09/2015 20:29, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 6:44:00 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson >> wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean<malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>> >>> Are you saying that a program containing a call to strcpy() actually >>> doesn't compile using Microsoft's compiler? If so, I believe you're >>> mistaken. >>> >> I got a Microsoft compiler in front of me, and I can assure you that >> with the default settings, a call to strcpy() is treated as fatal. > > What about when you invoke the compiler in conforming mode? > >> You can turn the behaviour of by defining _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS, >> but it's made slightly difficult, I'd guess deliberately. > > Then that's easy - just define it. When I want Microsoft's advice on > security, I'll ask for it. Right after you ask for Dubya's advice on fiscal responsibility? :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 23:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l7gkvahjbg2hh2ff0r7lvj45g4a8jk0920@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70682 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:29:16 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McLean
<malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 6:44:00 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>> Are you saying that a program containing a call to strcpy() actually
>> doesn't compile using Microsoft's compiler? If so, I believe you're
>> mistaken.
>>
>I got a Microsoft compiler in front of me, and I can assure you that
>with the default settings, a call to strcpy() is treated as fatal.
>You can turn the behaviour of by defining _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS,
>but it's made slightly difficult, I'd guess deliberately.
>
>If a customer says "avoiding security exploits is important to me,
>I want that behaviour on" then of course code calling strcpy() is
>useless to him. You can write your equivalent mystrcpy(), which
>achieves nothing in terms of avoiding buffer overruns, but shuts
>up the warning.
With VS2015, I compiled the following program from the command line:
#include <string.h>
void f(char *a, char * b)
{
strcpy(a,b);
}
G:\wessel>cl -c -W3 test193.c
Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.00.23026 for x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
test193.c
test193.c(5): warning C4996: 'strcpy': This function or variable may
be unsafe.
Consider using strcpy_s instead. To disable deprecation, use
_CRT_SECURE_NO_WARN
INGS. See online help for details.
C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows
Kits\10\include\10.0.10240.0\ucrt\string.h(119):
note: see declaration of 'strcpy'
The -c is compile only, since the above isn't a whole program, linking
would be pointless (and unsuccessful). Actually with the default,
without the -W3, it compiles with *no* warnings. At warning level 3
(and not at -W1 or -W2) it produces the above warning. Adding a -WX
("treat warnings as errors") turns that into a fatal error.
VS15 x86-64 produced the same result, as did x86-32 VS10. VS15 ARM
also produced the same result after adding "/D
_ARM_WINAPI_PARTITION_DESKTOP_SDK_AVAILABLE", as Win/ARM does not
support desktop applications, and MS goes out of its way to try and
prevent you from building such a thing.
Now the above *is* changed into an error if you specify -sdl, and
while I suspect that may now be the project default for at least some
versions of VS and some project types, it's not a compiler default.
(And if it is a project default, it's a post-VS10 option).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 13:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gebjvalpei0jnu7oci5alj9evm57tdlrpc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70648 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:33:38 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 4:34:25 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> [...] >> > You should also consider writing your own standard library string >> > functions - Microsoft has deprecated them, but not the identical >> > function with a my prefix. >> >> If you want to write your own string functions that are in some way >> better than the standard ones, that's fine (though you're likely >> to reinvent a number of wheels). >> >> But the standard functions are, well, *standard*. Even if Microsoft >> "deprecates" them, they still support them, and they still work. >> If you want to use them, just use them, and figure out how >> to disable Microsoft's deprecation warnings. Writing your own >> mystrcpy() function that does the same thing as strcpy(), just to >> avoid a warning, is pointless, error-prone, and likely to have a >> performance cost. >> >It doesn't take an experienced C programmer a minute to write >strcpy. Your fingers just fly at the keyboard. It's probably a lot >slower than the tweaked system version, but string handling isn't usually >the bottleneck in most programs. >It's not an ideal situation, but having code that won't compile with the >default setting isn't ideal either. But it *does* compile with the default settings, albeit with warnings. Only if you compiled with -WX (not, incidentally, the default setting), would it fail to compile. I'm pretty sure the party line around here is that implementations are allowed to warn about anything they like. And, as Jacob mentioned, you can turn those off, either with a define or a #pragma disabling the warning, in the source code, or you can do either the define or disable the warning on the command line.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 19:31 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d5sk6kF884kU17@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70602 |
Noob wrote: > On 16/09/2015 07:06, Ian Collins wrote: > >> If it builds with gcc on one platform, it will build with gcc on >> another. On Mac at least, gcc (Clang in disguise) is native. > > At the risk of stating the obvious, clang in disguise is not gcc. > (It is true that compatibility with gcc is a stated goal.) > http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html $ uname Darwin $ gcc -v Configured with: --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1 Apple LLVM version 6.1.0 (clang-602.0.53) (based on LLVM 3.6.0svn) Target: x86_64-apple-darwin14.4.0 Thread model: posix -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 11:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtbbah$1k9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70607 |
On 16/09/2015 09:31, Ian Collins wrote:
> Noob wrote:
>> On 16/09/2015 07:06, Ian Collins wrote:
>>
>>> If it builds with gcc on one platform, it will build with gcc on
>>> another. On Mac at least, gcc (Clang in disguise) is native.
>>
>> At the risk of stating the obvious, clang in disguise is not gcc.
>> (It is true that compatibility with gcc is a stated goal.)
>> http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html
>
> $ uname
> Darwin
> $ gcc -v
> Configured with: --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr
> --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1
> Apple LLVM version 6.1.0 (clang-602.0.53) (based on LLVM 3.6.0svn)
> Target: x86_64-apple-darwin14.4.0
> Thread model: posix
In other words, no traces of gcc code. (Apple is allergic to GPLv3.)
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#gcc-extensions-not-implemented-yet
Try this, it won't compile on your "gcc".
$ cat nested.c
double foo(double a, double b)
{
double square (double z) { return z * z; }
return square (a) + square (b);
}
$ gcc -std=c11 -Wall -Wextra -O2 -S nested.c
Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 21:17 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d5sqdgF884kU18@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70616 |
Noob wrote:
> On 16/09/2015 09:31, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Noob wrote:
>>> On 16/09/2015 07:06, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it builds with gcc on one platform, it will build with gcc on
>>>> another. On Mac at least, gcc (Clang in disguise) is native.
>>>
>>> At the risk of stating the obvious, clang in disguise is not gcc.
>>> (It is true that compatibility with gcc is a stated goal.)
>>> http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html
>>
>> $ uname
>> Darwin
>> $ gcc -v
>> Configured with: --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr
>> --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1
>> Apple LLVM version 6.1.0 (clang-602.0.53) (based on LLVM 3.6.0svn)
>> Target: x86_64-apple-darwin14.4.0
>> Thread model: posix
>
> In other words, no traces of gcc code. (Apple is allergic to GPLv3.)
Isn't that what I originally said?
> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#gcc-extensions-not-implemented-yet
>
> Try this, it won't compile on your "gcc".
>
> $ cat nested.c
> double foo(double a, double b)
> {
> double square (double z) { return z * z; }
> return square (a) + square (b);
> }
It won't compile on any standard C compiler. It's a shame gcc doesn't
complain without -pedantic.
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 11:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtbe85$bkj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70617 |
On 16/09/2015 11:17, Ian Collins wrote: > Noob wrote: >> On 16/09/2015 09:31, Ian Collins wrote: >>> Noob wrote: >>>> On 16/09/2015 07:06, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> >>>>> If it builds with gcc on one platform, it will build with gcc on >>>>> another. On Mac at least, gcc (Clang in disguise) is native. >>>> >>>> At the risk of stating the obvious, clang in disguise is not gcc. >>>> (It is true that compatibility with gcc is a stated goal.) >>>> http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html >>> >>> $ uname >>> Darwin >>> $ gcc -v >>> Configured with: --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr >>> --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1 >>> Apple LLVM version 6.1.0 (clang-602.0.53) (based on LLVM 3.6.0svn) >>> Target: x86_64-apple-darwin14.4.0 >>> Thread model: posix >> >> In other words, no traces of gcc code. (Apple is allergic to GPLv3.) > > Isn't that what I originally said? What you wrote perpetuates the confusion created by Apple that gcc is available natively, which is a lie. All Apple did is create a symlink to clang and called it "gcc". They should have made "gcc" a script that prints: "Sorry, we refuse to distribute gcc because we hate the GPL. But we poured millions into clang dev, so you should use that instead." > It won't compile on any standard C compiler. It's a shame gcc doesn't > complain without -pedantic. If you're limiting yourself to standard C, then any old compiler will do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 08:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lntwqujqxb.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #70623 |
Noob <root@127.0.0.1> writes:
> On 16/09/2015 11:17, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Noob wrote:
>>> On 16/09/2015 09:31, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>> Noob wrote:
>>>>> On 16/09/2015 07:06, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If it builds with gcc on one platform, it will build with gcc on
>>>>>> another. On Mac at least, gcc (Clang in disguise) is native.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the risk of stating the obvious, clang in disguise is not gcc.
>>>>> (It is true that compatibility with gcc is a stated goal.)
>>>>> http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html
>>>>
>>>> $ uname
>>>> Darwin
>>>> $ gcc -v
>>>> Configured with: --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr
>>>> --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1
>>>> Apple LLVM version 6.1.0 (clang-602.0.53) (based on LLVM 3.6.0svn)
>>>> Target: x86_64-apple-darwin14.4.0
>>>> Thread model: posix
>>>
>>> In other words, no traces of gcc code. (Apple is allergic to GPLv3.)
>>
>> Isn't that what I originally said?
>
> What you wrote perpetuates the confusion created by Apple that
> gcc is available natively, which is a lie.
What he wrote shows the result of typing "gcc -v" on an OSX system.
Not every followup is a refutation of the previous article.
> All Apple did is create a symlink to clang and called it "gcc".
Which is exactly what he demonstrated.
> They should have made "gcc" a script that prints:
> "Sorry, we refuse to distribute gcc because we hate the GPL. But we
> poured millions into clang dev, so you should use that instead."
I don't know for sure, but I presume they decided to make gcc a
symlink to clang because a lot of build scripts assume that the C
compiler is called "gcc", and break if it isn't. (A lot of build
scripts were written when gcc was the only gcc-compatible compiler
available, and more recent scripts are likely to continue to make
that assumption.) Since clang is mostly gcc-compatible, it seems
to be a decent solution.
It would have been cleaner to make "cc" a symlink to clang ("cc"
is a symlink to gcc on my Linux system), and for the scripts not
to assume the compiler is named "gcc", but updating arbitrarily
many build script is outside Apple's control.
--
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]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 21:43 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: "gcc" on OS X |
| Message-ID | <mtcgkp$l8r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70641 |
On 16/09/2015 17:59, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Noob writes:
>> On 16/09/2015 11:17, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> Noob wrote:
>>>> On 16/09/2015 09:31, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>>> Noob wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/09/2015 07:06, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it builds with gcc on one platform, it will build with gcc on
>>>>>>> another. On Mac at least, gcc (Clang in disguise) is native.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the risk of stating the obvious, clang in disguise is not gcc.
>>>>>> (It is true that compatibility with gcc is a stated goal.)
>>>>>> http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html
>>>>>
>>>>> $ uname
>>>>> Darwin
>>>>> $ gcc -v
>>>>> Configured with: --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr
>>>>> --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1
>>>>> Apple LLVM version 6.1.0 (clang-602.0.53) (based on LLVM 3.6.0svn)
>>>>> Target: x86_64-apple-darwin14.4.0
>>>>> Thread model: posix
>>>>
>>>> In other words, no traces of gcc code. (Apple is allergic to GPLv3.)
>>>
>>> Isn't that what I originally said?
>>
>> What you wrote perpetuates the confusion created by Apple that
>> gcc is available natively, which is a lie.
>
> What he wrote shows the result of typing "gcc -v" on an OSX system.
> Not every followup is a refutation of the previous article.
I was referring to his initial statement:
"If it builds with gcc on one platform, it will build with gcc on
another. On Mac at least, gcc (Clang in disguise) is native."
>> All Apple did is create a symlink to clang and called it "gcc".
>
> Which is exactly what he demonstrated.
It would have been clearer to show the symlink, and add
"yes, you're right".
>> They should have made "gcc" a script that prints:
>> "Sorry, we refuse to distribute gcc because we hate the GPL. But we
>> poured millions into clang dev, so you should use that instead."
>
> I don't know for sure, but I presume they decided to make gcc a
> symlink to clang because a lot of build scripts assume that the C
> compiler is called "gcc", and break if it isn't. (A lot of build
> scripts were written when gcc was the only gcc-compatible compiler
> available, and more recent scripts are likely to continue to make
> that assumption.) Since clang is mostly gcc-compatible, it seems
> to be a decent solution.
Looks like trademark-infringement to me.
Do you think the unwashed masses know the difference between
gcc and clang? When they can't figure out why "gcc" is not
working, will they complain about gcc or clang?
> It would have been cleaner to make "cc" a symlink to clang ("cc"
> is a symlink to gcc on my Linux system), and for the scripts not
> to assume the compiler is named "gcc", but updating arbitrarily
> many build script is outside Apple's control.
Apple gets no sympathy from me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 13:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: "gcc" on OS X |
| Message-ID | <lneghyi09x.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #70686 |
Noob <root@127.0.0.1> writes:
> On 16/09/2015 17:59, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> What he wrote shows the result of typing "gcc -v" on an OSX system.
>> Not every followup is a refutation of the previous article.
>
> I was referring to his initial statement:
> "If it builds with gcc on one platform, it will build with gcc on
> another. On Mac at least, gcc (Clang in disguise) is native."
On Mac, the "gcc" *command* (the program that's invoked when you type
"gcc" at a shell prompt) is Clang in disguise. Everyone in this
discussion is aware of that, and nobody has implied otherwise.
[...]
> It would have been clearer to show the symlink, and add
> "yes, you're right".
Then perhaps you could have said that you found his answer unclear.
(I found it clear enough myself.)
[...]
> Looks like trademark-infringement to me.
I don't believe the name "gcc" is trademarked.
> Do you think the unwashed masses know the difference between
> gcc and clang? When they can't figure out why "gcc" is not
> working, will they complain about gcc or clang?
I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if it caused some confusion.
But given the issues I mentioned with build scripts, I can't think
of a better solution than the one Apple came up with. (Sure, they
could have used gcc itself rather than clang; I'm not interested
in discussing their reasons for that.)
Incidentally, these "unwashed masses" are programmers. I'll bet most of
them, even if they don't happen to know that the gcc command invokes
clang, are capable of learning that it does.
[...]
> Apple gets no sympathy from me.
Whatever.
--
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]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 08:25 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d5u1i5FbqqoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70623 |
Noob wrote: > On 16/09/2015 11:17, Ian Collins wrote: >> Noob wrote: >>> On 16/09/2015 09:31, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> Noob wrote: >>>>> On 16/09/2015 07:06, Ian Collins wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If it builds with gcc on one platform, it will build with gcc on >>>>>> another. On Mac at least, gcc (Clang in disguise) is native. >>>>> >>>>> At the risk of stating the obvious, clang in disguise is not gcc. >>>>> (It is true that compatibility with gcc is a stated goal.) >>>>> http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html >>>> >>>> $ uname >>>> Darwin >>>> $ gcc -v >>>> Configured with: --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr >>>> --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1 >>>> Apple LLVM version 6.1.0 (clang-602.0.53) (based on LLVM 3.6.0svn) >>>> Target: x86_64-apple-darwin14.4.0 >>>> Thread model: posix >>> >>> In other words, no traces of gcc code. (Apple is allergic to GPLv3.) >> >> Isn't that what I originally said? > > What you wrote perpetuates the confusion created by Apple that > gcc is available natively, which is a lie. > > All Apple did is create a symlink to clang and called it "gcc". $ file /usr/bin/gcc /usr/bin/gcc: Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 11:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mte7od$5p0$2@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #70623 |
In article <mtbe85$bkj$1@dont-email.me>, Noob <root@127.0.0.1> wrote:
...
>What you wrote perpetuates the confusion created by Apple that
>gcc is available natively, which is a lie.
>
>All Apple did is create a symlink to clang and called it "gcc".
Not that it matters much, and it is quite likely that the poeple (such as
yourself) who are using the term "symlink" are, in fact, using it
semi-metaphorically, but do note that (when clang is installed on an OSX
system), gcc is not a symlink to anything. It is a (small) standalone
executable, that basically converts "gcc-ese" command line arguments into
their "clang-ese" equivalents, then invokes clang.
Repeat: It is not a symlink.
>They should have made "gcc" a script that prints:
>"Sorry, we refuse to distribute gcc because we hate the GPL. But we
>poured millions into clang dev, so you should use that instead."
I assume you're being facetious. Which is fine, and always attractive in a
newsgroup posting.
--
If you think you have any objections to anything I've said above, please
navigate to this URL:
http://www.xmission.com/~gazelle/Truth
This should clear up any misconceptions you may have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 17:06 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: gcc not a symlink on Mac OS X |
| Message-ID | <mtekql$n96$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70794 |
My Dear Kenny, What took you so long to smell the blood? ;-) (Talking about the entire thread.) On 17/09/2015 13:21, Kenny McCormack wrote: > Noob wrote: > ... >> What you wrote perpetuates the confusion created by Apple that >> gcc is available natively, which is a lie. >> >> All Apple did is create a symlink to clang and called it "gcc". > > Not that it matters much, and it is quite likely that the people (such as > yourself) who are using the term "symlink" are, in fact, using it > semi-metaphorically, but do note that (when clang is installed on an OSX > system), gcc is not a symlink to anything. It is a (small) standalone > executable, that basically converts "gcc-ese" command line arguments into > their "clang-ese" equivalents, then invokes clang. > > Repeat: It is not a symlink. I thought it was an actual symlink. I saw Ian's "file /usr/bin/gcc" and now your confirmation. I'm confused, because I was going by these links: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19535422/os-x-10-9-gcc-links-to-clang So when he said "links to" he meant "calls"? These guys used actual symbolic links, but I suppose that's not the recommended solution? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1165361/setting-gcc-4-2-as-the-default-compiler-on-mac-os-x-leopard https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/99077/how-to-set-gcc-4-8-as-default-gcc-compiler Anyway, thanks to both for setting me straight. >> They should have made "gcc" a script that prints: >> "Sorry, we refuse to distribute gcc because we hate the GPL. But we >> poured millions into clang dev, so you should use that instead." > > I assume you're being facetious. Which is fine, and always attractive in a > newsgroup posting. Hell, no! I was being 142% serious! I do hope gcc doesn't get buried though. We don't need another round of Unix wars. Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web