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 | 20 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 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 19:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtc9ih$ji8$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70659 |
On 16.09.2015 19:33, Keith Thompson wrote: > "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> writes: >> On 16.09.2015 18:14, jacobnavia wrote: >>> Le 16/09/2015 11:20, David Brown a écrit : >>>> or >>>> has declared to be "unsafe" and therefore not immediately available. >>> >>> Please just keep the facts clear and do not spread FUD... >>> >>> All functions of C89 are available under MSVC as always. You will get a >>> warning (that can be avoided by adding a #define) if you use them, that >>> is all. >> >> Just out of curiosity, who pays your bills? > > Just out of curiosity, why do you care about something that's none of > your business, and that has no apparent relevance to anything discussed > in this newsgroup in general, or in this thread in particular? Money has a lot to do with power, and power has a lot to do with what people dare/choose to say.. I'm not suggesting that jacob is 100% wrong, but that his statements may be tainted by other interests. -Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 12:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtca2g$q6a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70661 |
On 9/16/2015 12:40 PM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > On 16.09.2015 19:33, Keith Thompson wrote: >> "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 16.09.2015 18:14, jacobnavia wrote: >>>> Le 16/09/2015 11:20, David Brown a écrit : >>>>> or >>>>> has declared to be "unsafe" and therefore not immediately available. >>>> >>>> Please just keep the facts clear and do not spread FUD... >>>> >>>> All functions of C89 are available under MSVC as always. You will get a >>>> warning (that can be avoided by adding a #define) if you use them, that >>>> is all. >>> >>> Just out of curiosity, who pays your bills? >> >> Just out of curiosity, why do you care about something that's none of >> your business, and that has no apparent relevance to anything discussed >> in this newsgroup in general, or in this thread in particular? > > Money has a lot to do with power, and power has a lot to do with what > people dare/choose to say.. > > I'm not suggesting that jacob is 100% wrong, but that his statements > may be tainted by other interests. And instead of finding out the truth for yourself (it's not particularly difficult in this case), you ask irrelevant personal questions. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 19:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtcaf0$lfi$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70664 |
On 16.09.2015 19:50, Martin Shobe wrote: > On 9/16/2015 12:40 PM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: >> On 16.09.2015 19:33, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On 16.09.2015 18:14, jacobnavia wrote: >>>>> Le 16/09/2015 11:20, David Brown a écrit : >>>>>> or >>>>>> has declared to be "unsafe" and therefore not immediately available. >>>>> >>>>> Please just keep the facts clear and do not spread FUD... >>>>> >>>>> All functions of C89 are available under MSVC as always. You will >>>>> get a >>>>> warning (that can be avoided by adding a #define) if you use them, >>>>> that >>>>> is all. >>>> >>>> Just out of curiosity, who pays your bills? >>> >>> Just out of curiosity, why do you care about something that's none of >>> your business, and that has no apparent relevance to anything discussed >>> in this newsgroup in general, or in this thread in particular? >> >> Money has a lot to do with power, and power has a lot to do with what >> people dare/choose to say.. >> >> I'm not suggesting that jacob is 100% wrong, but that his statements >> may be tainted by other interests. > > And instead of finding out the truth for yourself (it's not particularly > difficult in this case), you ask irrelevant personal questions. OK, well I'll follow up on this. -Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 13:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <55F9ADA6.8090607@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #70661 |
On 09/16/2015 01:40 PM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > On 16.09.2015 19:33, Keith Thompson wrote: >> "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 16.09.2015 18:14, jacobnavia wrote: >>>> Le 16/09/2015 11:20, David Brown a écrit : >>>>> or >>>>> has declared to be "unsafe" and therefore not immediately available. >>>> >>>> Please just keep the facts clear and do not spread FUD... >>>> >>>> All functions of C89 are available under MSVC as always. You will get a >>>> warning (that can be avoided by adding a #define) if you use them, that >>>> is all. >>> >>> Just out of curiosity, who pays your bills? >> >> Just out of curiosity, why do you care about something that's none of >> your business, and that has no apparent relevance to anything discussed >> in this newsgroup in general, or in this thread in particular? > > Money has a lot to do with power, and power has a lot to do with what > people dare/choose to say.. > > I'm not suggesting that jacob is 100% wrong, but that his statements > may be tainted by other interests. Yes, and it's precisely that suggestion which is out of place here. All you're trying to do is imply that his statements are incorrect because you don't approve of his association (non-existent, as far as I can tell) with Microsoft. That's not a valid argument. If there's anything less than 100% correct about what he said, then identify it, and provide supporting evidence for it's lack of correctness. Whether or not he might have motives for providing incorrect information is irrelevant - only the correctness or lack thereof is relevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 11:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnd1xijl8u.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #70661 |
"Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> writes:
> On 16.09.2015 19:33, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 16.09.2015 18:14, jacobnavia wrote:
>>>> Le 16/09/2015 11:20, David Brown a écrit :
>>>>> or
>>>>> has declared to be "unsafe" and therefore not immediately available.
>>>>
>>>> Please just keep the facts clear and do not spread FUD...
>>>>
>>>> All functions of C89 are available under MSVC as always. You will get a
>>>> warning (that can be avoided by adding a #define) if you use them, that
>>>> is all.
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, who pays your bills?
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, why do you care about something that's none of
>> your business, and that has no apparent relevance to anything discussed
>> in this newsgroup in general, or in this thread in particular?
>
> Money has a lot to do with power, and power has a lot to do with what
> people dare/choose to say..
>
> I'm not suggesting that jacob is 100% wrong, but that his statements
> may be tainted by other interests.
I don't believe that's the case. You are making a vague accusation
with no apparent basis in fact.
As far as I'm able to tell, jacob's factual statements in this
thread are correct, and having read many of his posts here over
the years, I don't believe he has any ulterior motive for making
those statements. If you think he's mistaken, explain. If you
think he's being dishonest, either explain or just shut up.
--
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 20:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <mtcdil$8rb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70644 |
On 16/09/2015 18:22, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > Just out of curiosity, who pays your bills? You are right to ask this question. Undisclosed biases, astro turfing, hidden agendas, etc are a plague in online arguments. JN derives his monies by selling a C compiler for Windows. This explains why: 1) he hates GCC (those fucking GNU hippies with their free software are stealing his customers) 2) he has good knowledge of the Windows platform 3) he will often defend Windows as the superior platform (As for myself, I'll admit that I'm a fucking GNU hippie, and not even a good one at that.) Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 12:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <lnzj0mi32y.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #70675 |
Noob <root@127.0.0.1> writes:
> On 16/09/2015 18:22, Morten W. Petersen wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, who pays your bills?
>
> You are right to ask this question.
No, he's not.
> Undisclosed biases, astro turfing, hidden agendas, etc are
> a plague in online arguments.
So are vague and unsubstantiated accusations.
[snip]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 23:33 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <mtcn6j$l1v$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70680 |
On 16.09.2015 21:20, Keith Thompson wrote: > Noob <root@127.0.0.1> writes: >> On 16/09/2015 18:22, Morten W. Petersen wrote: >>> Just out of curiosity, who pays your bills? >> >> You are right to ask this question. > > No, he's not. I think I have the right to ask the question. And he has the right to refuse giving an answer. It might very well be that Jacob thinks he has a point but doesn't understand what he's talking about. -Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 17:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <55F9E4A8.9070201@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #70721 |
On 09/16/2015 05:33 PM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > On 16.09.2015 21:20, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Noob <root@127.0.0.1> writes: >>> On 16/09/2015 18:22, Morten W. Petersen wrote: >>>> Just out of curiosity, who pays your bills? >>> >>> You are right to ask this question. >> >> No, he's not. > > I think I have the right to ask the question. And he has the right to > refuse giving an answer. You may have the right, but it wasn't a reasonable thing to ask, being irrelevant to any legitimate point you might have been trying to make (it was very relevant to the illegitimate point you were trying to make). > It might very well be that Jacob thinks he has a point but doesn't > understand what he's talking about. What he said is very relevant, if true. If you think he was wrong about something, you'd go much farther in advancing your argument by pointing specifically what he's wrong about, and providing supporting evidence. So far, all you've done is try to smear him with guilt by association, rather than addressing the truth or falsity of what he's said. That tells me two things: you don't have evidence that what he's said is wrong, or you would have presented that evidence. And it tells me that you don't let the fact that you don't have a relevant argument stop you from arguing irrelevancies. Are those fact really ones that you want to broadcast to the general public? My opinion of you has dropped precipitously because of this exchange, and it looks like I'm not the only one who feels that way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 00:03 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <mtcovc$ouu$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70728 |
On 16.09.2015 23:52, James Kuyper wrote: > On 09/16/2015 05:33 PM, Morten W. Petersen wrote: [...] >> It might very well be that Jacob thinks he has a point but doesn't >> understand what he's talking about. > > What he said is very relevant, if true. If you think he was wrong about > something, you'd go much farther in advancing your argument by pointing > specifically what he's wrong about, and providing supporting evidence. > > So far, all you've done is try to smear him with guilt by association, > rather than addressing the truth or falsity of what he's said. That > tells me two things: you don't have evidence that what he's said is > wrong, or you would have presented that evidence. And it tells me that > you don't let the fact that you don't have a relevant argument stop you > from arguing irrelevancies. > > Are those fact really ones that you want to broadcast to the general > public? My opinion of you has dropped precipitously because of this > exchange, and it looks like I'm not the only one who feels that way. Well every individual and every organization have the freedom to do what they do, but they are also accountable for their actions. Small things do matter, and seeing how MS handled the web and browsers, it wouldn't surprise me they were underhanded when it came to C as well. I found Jacobs reply to be unintelligent and that might be because he is naive & not smart or because he isn't what he pretends to be. That's why I asked. -Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 15:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <lnoah2gg47.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #70734 |
"Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> I found Jacobs reply to be unintelligent and that might be because he
> is naive & not smart or because he isn't what he pretends to be. That's
> why I asked.
Or it might be because jacob is right and that you don't know what
you're talking about. In fact I'm fairly sure that that's exactly the
case here.
The statement jacob made that you responded to was:
All functions of C89 are available under MSVC as always. You will
get a warning (that can be avoided by adding a #define) if you use
them, that is all.
He was, as far as I can tell, correct. (Apparently there are
some configurations in which you'll get a fatal error. I do not
believe such configurations are enabled by default. I'm waiting
for confirmation on that point in another thread.)
Do you have anything to say about the accuracy of what jacob wrote?
Do you believe he was incorrect? Or do you just reflexively accuse
anyone who says anything positive about Microsoft of being dishonest?
You have dug yourself into a very deep hole. I suggest you stop
digging.
--
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 | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 00:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <mtcqha$s1i$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70737 |
On 17.09.2015 00:21, Keith Thompson wrote: [...] > You have dug yourself into a very deep hole. I suggest you stop > digging. Well I've had some beers, so I won't post any more posts right now. But I'd like to add that the hole doesn't get any deeper than it is just because someone says it is. -Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 00:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <GUmKx.484021$Dx3.427778@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #70740 |
On 16/09/2015 23:30, Morten W. Petersen wrote: > On 17.09.2015 00:21, Keith Thompson wrote: > [...] >> You have dug yourself into a very deep hole. I suggest you stop >> digging. > > Well I've had some beers, so I won't post any more posts right now. > > But I'd like to add that the hole doesn't get any deeper than > it is just because someone says it is. Like James, I was taken aback by your inappropriate questioning of Jacob's income. Here's something I learned about Usenet a long time ago: when you're wrong, say sorry, shut up, and sit down. That would be good advice for you to follow right now. You owe Jacob an apology. -- 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 | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 21:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <26fkvahlbfiico98l1c49mvpop222o5v35@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70737 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:21:28 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >The statement jacob made that you responded to was: > > All functions of C89 are available under MSVC as always. You will > get a warning (that can be avoided by adding a #define) if you use > them, that is all. > >He was, as far as I can tell, correct. (Apparently there are >some configurations in which you'll get a fatal error. I do not >believe such configurations are enabled by default. I'm waiting >for confirmation on that point in another thread.) > Not knowing which thread contains your query, I'll answer it here. Jacob is correct. The MSVC system emits warnings about the Standard Library functions they consider unsafe or deprecated. The compiler emits warnings: "warning C4996: 'strncpy': This function or variable may be unsafe. Consider using strncpy_s instead. To disable deprecation, use _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS. See online help for details." One can suppress these warnings by: 1) #define _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS 2) #if _MSC_VER > 1500 // VS 2010 or later #pragma warning (disable:4996) #endif 3) defining _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS in the project settings in the IDE. My personal preference is for 2 or 1 depending on how many source files are involved. The compiler can be configured to treat warnings as errors by asserting /WX on the command line. In this case the tool emits a single error message: "error C2220: warning treated as error - no 'object' file generated" and C4996 warnings for each line in the source where such warnings are deemed appropriate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 05:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <6CrKx.511942$8E7.235636@fx29.am4> |
| In reply to | #70766 |
On 17/09/2015 05:24, Geoff wrote: <snip> > Jacob is correct. Yes. > The MSVC system emits warnings about the Standard > Library functions they consider unsafe or deprecated. The compiler > emits warnings: > > "warning C4996: 'strncpy': This function or variable may be unsafe. The function is perfectly safe. It's the way people use it that can be dangerous. When it is used appropriately, there is no problem with strncpy. > Consider using strncpy_s instead. The problem with strncpy_s is that it is badly named. It doesn't do the same job as strncpy. It is not a drop-in replacement. So the first part of the name is just wrong. What's more, it's not secure. (Easy to prove.) So if the _s is meant to mean "secure version of", then both parts of the name are wrong. <snip> -- 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 | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 07:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <rshlvattp2840k0n1n5oevrmstu683cnp8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70768 |
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 05:48:00 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >On 17/09/2015 05:24, Geoff wrote: > ><snip> > >> Jacob is correct. > >Yes. > >> The MSVC system emits warnings about the Standard >> Library functions they consider unsafe or deprecated. The compiler >> emits warnings: >> >> "warning C4996: 'strncpy': This function or variable may be unsafe. > >The function is perfectly safe. It's the way people use it that can be >dangerous. When it is used appropriately, there is no problem with strncpy. > >> Consider using strncpy_s instead. > >The problem with strncpy_s is that it is badly named. It doesn't do the >same job as strncpy. It is not a drop-in replacement. So the first part >of the name is just wrong. What's more, it's not secure. (Easy to >prove.) So if the _s is meant to mean "secure version of", then both >parts of the name are wrong. > Bring that up with the committee that designed strncpy_s. ><snip> Irrelevancies. They use the words "may be unsafe", they don't say it /is/ unsafe. The point of the warnings is to deprecate and eventually eliminate usage of those library functions and practices that have caused vulnerabilities in the past. Whether this is a good policy or not is irrelevant to the discussion. The warning is also issued when one calls POSIX library functions like stricmp() instead of _stricmp(). I'm not making judgments about the wisdom of the policy, I'm only stating that it exists, what it does and how to disable it in the tools.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 17:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <LsBKx.352104$nx.4405@fx16.am4> |
| In reply to | #70822 |
On 17/09/2015 15:16, Geoff wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 05:48:00 +0100, Richard Heathfield > <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >>On 17/09/2015 05:24, Geoff wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>> Jacob is correct. >> >>Yes. >> >>> The MSVC system emits warnings about the Standard >>> Library functions they consider unsafe or deprecated. The compiler >>> emits warnings: >>> >>> "warning C4996: 'strncpy': This function or variable may be unsafe. >> >>The function is perfectly safe. It's the way people use it that can be >>dangerous. When it is used appropriately, there is no problem with strncpy. >> >>> Consider using strncpy_s instead. >> >>The problem with strncpy_s is that it is badly named. It doesn't do the >>same job as strncpy. It is not a drop-in replacement. So the first part >>of the name is just wrong. What's more, it's not secure. (Easy to >>prove.) So if the _s is meant to mean "secure version of", then both >>parts of the name are wrong. >> > > Bring that up with the committee that designed strncpy_s. What's the point? They would just make the same mistakes again. >><snip> > > Irrelevancies. They use the words "may be unsafe", they don't say it > /is/ unsafe. If they're weasel words, then we don't need the replacement function. And if they're not weasel words, they're simply wrong, and we don't need the replacement function. Either way, we don't need a replacement function that has different functionality to the function it supposedly supplants. > The point of the warnings is to deprecate and eventually > eliminate usage of those library functions and practices that have > caused vulnerabilities in the past. That does not excuse their recommendation to use strncpy_s instead of strncpy, since it doesn't do the same job. > Whether this is a good policy or > not is irrelevant to the discussion. I would agree with that. What is highly relevant to the discussion is that the diagnostic message recommends a course of action that could well lead to the introduction of bugs into the program, which is not normally the intent of diagnostic messages. > The warning is also issued when one calls POSIX library functions like > stricmp() instead of _stricmp(). Well, that's between them and POSIX. > I'm not making judgments about the wisdom of the policy, I'm only > stating that it exists, what it does and how to disable it in the > tools. That's fine. And I, in my turn, am commenting only on the inappropriateness of the diagnostic message. -- 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 | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 11:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet |
| Message-ID | <lnio78gb1u.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #70831 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 17/09/2015 15:16, Geoff wrote:
[...]
>> The point of the warnings is to deprecate and eventually
>> eliminate usage of those library functions and practices that have
>> caused vulnerabilities in the past.
>
> That does not excuse their recommendation to use strncpy_s instead of
> strncpy, since it doesn't do the same job.
fgets() doesn't do the same job as gets(), but it's the commonly
recommended replacement for it.
There is a difference, of course, in that strncpy is not
*fundamentally* unsafe. Its behavior is well defined; it's just not
what you'd expect given the name (to the extent that I've probably
seen it used incorrectly more than I've seen it used correctly).
[...]
--
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 | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 23:31 -0700 |
| Subject | MSVC deprecation (was Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet) |
| Message-ID | <ln8u85h7zx.fsf_-_@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #70766 |
Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:21:28 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> wrote:
>
>>The statement jacob made that you responded to was:
>>
>> All functions of C89 are available under MSVC as always. You will
>> get a warning (that can be avoided by adding a #define) if you use
>> them, that is all.
>>
>>He was, as far as I can tell, correct. (Apparently there are
>>some configurations in which you'll get a fatal error. I do not
>>believe such configurations are enabled by default. I'm waiting
>>for confirmation on that point in another thread.)
>>
>
> Not knowing which thread contains your query, I'll answer it here.
>
> Jacob is correct. The MSVC system emits warnings about the Standard
> Library functions they consider unsafe or deprecated. The compiler
> emits warnings:
>
> "warning C4996: 'strncpy': This function or variable may be unsafe.
> Consider using strncpy_s instead. To disable deprecation, use
> _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS. See online help for details."
>
> One can suppress these warnings by:
>
> 1)
> #define _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS
>
> 2)
> #if _MSC_VER > 1500 // VS 2010 or later
> #pragma warning (disable:4996)
> #endif
>
> 3)
> defining _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS in the project settings in the IDE.
>
> My personal preference is for 2 or 1 depending on how many source
> files are involved.
>
> The compiler can be configured to treat warnings as errors by
> asserting /WX on the command line. In this case the tool emits a
> single error message:
>
> "error C2220: warning treated as error - no 'object' file generated"
>
> and C4996 warnings for each line in the source where such warnings are
> deemed appropriate.
Thanks for the information. What version of MSVC are you using?
In the original thread (subject "Compiling C project for Windows and Mac
OS X (GCC for Linux)"), Richard Damon wrote:
I believe Microsoft themselves changed the default recently to turn
this on as a fatal error.
Your observation could be consistent with that *if* you're using a
non-current version. But then it seems odd that the MSDN documentation
for Visual Studio 2015:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/kk6xf663.aspx
doesn't warn against strcpy more strongly than it does.
--
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 | 2015-09-17 07:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: MSVC deprecation (was Re: Hidden agendas on Usenet) |
| Message-ID | <24jlvapsan83lg9t8m4tpait75v7arm1mh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70772 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:31:30 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> writes: >> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:21:28 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> >> wrote: >> >>>The statement jacob made that you responded to was: >>> >>> All functions of C89 are available under MSVC as always. You will >>> get a warning (that can be avoided by adding a #define) if you use >>> them, that is all. >>> >>>He was, as far as I can tell, correct. (Apparently there are >>>some configurations in which you'll get a fatal error. I do not >>>believe such configurations are enabled by default. I'm waiting >>>for confirmation on that point in another thread.) >>> >> >> Not knowing which thread contains your query, I'll answer it here. >> >> Jacob is correct. The MSVC system emits warnings about the Standard >> Library functions they consider unsafe or deprecated. The compiler >> emits warnings: >> >> "warning C4996: 'strncpy': This function or variable may be unsafe. >> Consider using strncpy_s instead. To disable deprecation, use >> _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS. See online help for details." >> >> One can suppress these warnings by: >> >> 1) >> #define _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS >> >> 2) >> #if _MSC_VER > 1500 // VS 2010 or later >> #pragma warning (disable:4996) >> #endif >> >> 3) >> defining _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS in the project settings in the IDE. >> >> My personal preference is for 2 or 1 depending on how many source >> files are involved. >> >> The compiler can be configured to treat warnings as errors by >> asserting /WX on the command line. In this case the tool emits a >> single error message: >> >> "error C2220: warning treated as error - no 'object' file generated" >> >> and C4996 warnings for each line in the source where such warnings are >> deemed appropriate. > >Thanks for the information. What version of MSVC are you using? > I use VS2010 IDE and recently acquired VS2013. I don't like the new version very much, they changed a lot of the shortcut keys in the IDE. I'm too old for that s__t. :) >In the original thread (subject "Compiling C project for Windows and Mac >OS X (GCC for Linux)"), Richard Damon wrote: > > I believe Microsoft themselves changed the default recently to turn > this on as a fatal error. > >Your observation could be consistent with that *if* you're using a >non-current version. But then it seems odd that the MSDN documentation >for Visual Studio 2015: > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/kk6xf663.aspx >doesn't warn against strcpy more strongly than it does. It's a warning by default in VS2010. It's an error by default in VS2013 if you accept the "Security Development Lifecycle" (SDL) checks when establishing your project with the wizard. The project default is still /WX- on the "Treat warnings as errors" property but /sdl is enabled and stops compilation at the first instance of C4996. It's very easily turned off in the IDE if you missed it at project creation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web