Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #129666 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-24 13:39 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-04-27 00:23 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 131 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-24 13:39 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-24 16:38 +0100
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2018-04-24 13:40 -0400
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-24 08:38 -0700
[Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-24 18:06 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-25 07:33 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 07:49 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-25 21:28 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2018-04-28 14:26 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-28 20:25 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2018-04-29 15:12 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-29 16:49 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2018-04-30 15:30 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 17:06 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 09:12 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet C W Rose <cwr@seckford.org> - 2018-05-02 15:19 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 07:54 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-03 12:45 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2018-05-05 14:22 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 08:42 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet C W Rose <cwr@seckford.org> - 2018-05-07 16:34 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 09:37 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 10:19 +0200
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 11:31 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 08:53 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 18:14 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 08:54 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-25 09:24 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-25 18:10 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-25 10:48 -0700
Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-04-25 19:23 +0000
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) Bruce S <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 16:55 -0600
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-25 16:03 -0700
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) Bruce S <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 18:02 -0600
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-25 17:14 -0700
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) Bruce S <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 13:31 -0600
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-04-26 03:27 +0000
Re: Casting the return value of malloc() (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-26 11:06 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet 1alvinalbrecht1@gmail.com - 2018-04-25 18:41 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-26 07:26 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 16:26 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-25 21:50 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 01:47 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 02:18 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-26 11:18 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-26 11:33 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 05:26 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-27 00:09 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:14 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-26 10:26 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-27 00:02 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 02:35 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-27 11:34 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2018-04-27 04:14 -0700
STDIO.H vs stdio.h (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-04-27 13:08 +0000
Re: STDIO.H vs stdio.h (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2018-04-27 18:52 +0200
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 07:08 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 10:36 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-27 19:04 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 11:26 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-27 18:45 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 03:43 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-30 09:10 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 23:32 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-26 07:33 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2018-04-26 08:38 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-04-27 03:30 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-27 08:41 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-27 17:04 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 11:06 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-27 20:15 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 13:47 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-27 22:06 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 14:51 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-28 00:25 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 17:23 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-28 01:39 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-27 19:22 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 10:36 +0200
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 11:21 +0100
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 04:03 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 14:03 +0200
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 09:19 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 11:00 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-05 18:39 +0200
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 16:23 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-28 12:11 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 14:12 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-28 12:21 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-04 13:31 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 17:19 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-05-18 21:55 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-21 03:26 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-06-14 03:00 -0700
Mixing declarations and statements in C code (Was: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-12-26 06:43 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-12-26 19:02 +0300
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-12-31 18:01 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-12-31 17:16 -0500
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-12-31 22:44 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2019-01-01 19:14 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2019-01-01 13:14 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-01 12:49 -0800
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2019-01-01 15:55 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-01 16:05 -0800
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2019-01-01 22:17 -0700
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-01 20:25 +0000
Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-04 11:48 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Ed Kellett <e@kellett.im> - 2018-04-24 16:40 +0100
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:01 -0700
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-04-24 15:50 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 17:21 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2018-04-24 13:20 -0400
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2018-04-24 13:30 -0400
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 17:42 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-24 18:26 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-04-25 19:19 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-25 21:30 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-25 22:55 +0100
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-04-27 08:49 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-04-25 15:37 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-25 09:27 -0700
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-04-26 13:22 +0200
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:21 -0700
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-04-27 08:16 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-27 09:36 -0700
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 10:41 +0200
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 14:27 +0000
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-24 11:09 -0700
Re: Need some help getting to my feet C W Rose <cwr@seckford.org> - 2018-04-25 18:59 +0100
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-26 10:42 -0700
Re: Need some help getting to my feet Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 00:23 -0700
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 18:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <PcKEC.25444$nT1.7357@fx20.iad> |
| In reply to | #129868 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 27/04/2018 18:36, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> #include directives don't end in a semicolon because that's the syntax.
>>>
>>> The underlying reason, which Schildt could have gone into if he had
>>> wanted to, is that preprocessor directives are strictly line-oriented,
>>> so there's no need for semicolons as a separator. His claim that it's
>>> because "it is an instruction to the C compiler itself" is nonsense.
>>> Everything in a C source file is an instruction to the C compiler.
>>
>> No, it isn't. If I say:
>>
>> #include "FILE.H"
>>
>> then /that's/ telling the compiler to go and locate that file and to
>> incorporate the contents into the source. If I say:
>>
>> include("FILE.H");
>>
>> then the compiler will /not/ execute this function call. It will make
>> arrangements for it to be executed at runtime.
>
>It instructs the compiler to generate code to call the function.
>
>> So I think Schildt was right.
>
>I will admit that it's reasonable to say that preprocessor
>directives are instructions to the compiler, while statements are
>instructions to do something at compile time. I think my statement
>that "Everything in a C source file is an instruction to the C
>compiler." is strictly true, but it is a bit of a stretch.
>
>In any case, that was a side point, and not particularly relevant.
>Schildt's claim that preprocessor directives don't have semicolons
>*because" they're instructions to the C compiler is nonsense.
I'm not sure when his tome was written, but back in the 80's
and early 90's, many C compilers still used cpp(1) for a separate
pre-processing pass and the C compiler itself wouldn't see
any pre-processor directives other than #line directives generated
by the pre-processor itself (used for accurate syntax error reporting).
In our case, it was effectively "cat source | cpp | cfront | cc" albeit using
intermediate temp files rather than pipes up through the middle 90's
on SVR4 and later Unixware.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 03:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <b3649540-be70-48ad-8316-c5f98d36b92f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129865 |
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:36:37 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > > <sarcasm>But his writing is clear end engaging, so that's ok.<sarcasm> > You need to consider what a tutorial written by yourself would be like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 09:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <ln7eooekur.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #129951 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:36:37 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
>> <sarcasm>But his writing is clear end engaging, so that's ok.<sarcasm>
>>
> You need to consider what a tutorial written by yourself would be
> like.
Was that intended as an insult?
It likely wouldn't be very good, due in part to my tendency to get
bogged down in details, which is one reason I haven't written one.
Schildt, on the other hand, didn't let his ignorance of the language
stop him from writing books about it.
I posted links to reviews of two of his books. Have you read them?
If you can open a book to a random page and find multiple serious
errors, that's a bad sign.
You've defended some of his false statements by claiming that he's
simplifying things, and you've defended other false statements that
are substantially more complicated than the truth would have been.
I suspect you're just being contrary. I do not expect that you
will ever admit it or change your mind.
--
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 | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 23:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <f85585dd-4712-4dbc-a6af-03141cacafed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129971 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:10:29 AM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:36:37 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> > >> <sarcasm>But his writing is clear end engaging, so that's ok.<sarcasm> > >> > > You need to consider what a tutorial written by yourself would be > > like. > > Was that intended as an insult? > > It likely wouldn't be very good, due in part to my tendency to get > bogged down in details, which is one reason I haven't written one. > > Schildt, on the other hand, didn't let his ignorance of the language > stop him from writing books about it. > > I posted links to reviews of two of his books. Have you read them? > If you can open a book to a random page and find multiple serious > errors, that's a bad sign. > > You've defended some of his false statements by claiming that he's > simplifying things, and you've defended other false statements that > are substantially more complicated than the truth would have been. > I suspect you're just being contrary. I do not expect that you > will ever admit it or change your mind. > > -- > 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" Autumn Nissen <https://www.instantcheckmate.com/people/autumn-nissen> is far too stupid to write a useful script. The only scripting he's able to do is flooding groups. For others I would merely suspect it is worth looking into. Given that it's Autumn Nissen <https://www.instantcheckmate.com/people/autumn-nissen> I would dump that doubt and go straight to 'lie' because that's most of what Autumn Nissen <https://www.instantcheckmate.com/people/autumn-nissen> does. IOW, there is no reason to respect presumption of innocence. Can you get over it? What do you get out of lying? At one point, Autumn Nissen <https://www.instantcheckmate.com/people/autumn-nissen> said a usenet denizen was "obsessing" over him, which was defined as mentioning any of his socks. That's what Autumn Nissen <https://www.instantcheckmate.com/people/autumn-nissen> does when he gets cornered. He immediately creates a sock, starts a stupid thread so he can claim it was Thiago Adams. Don't blame me it was my left hand... and then he babbles to himself with his right hand. -- E-commerce Simplified! http://www.5z8.info/backyard-fireworks-disasters_t7w7pu_bombbuilding https://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4 Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 07:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <lnwowuf36j.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #129771 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> He's also the author of "Teach yourself C"
>
> Here's an example
>
> The most commonly required header file is called STDIO.H. Here is the
> directive that includes this file
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> You can specify the filename in either upper- or lowercase but lowercase
> is the traditional method. The STDIO.H header file contains, among
> other things, the information related to the printf() library function.
> Notice that the #include directive does not end with a semicolon.
> The reason for this is that #include is not a C keyword that can
> define a statement. Instead it is an instruction to the C compiler itself.
He is of course wrong about standard header names being
case-insensitive. Using uppercase might happen to work under
Windows, or under some other system with a case-insensitive
filesystem, but it's non-standard. Even on Windows, a compiler
*could* reject the uppercase form.
Mentioning the possibility of using uppercase introduced needless
complication for no good reason.
And the fact that a #include directive has no semicolon has nothing in
particular to do with the fact that it's "an instruction to the C
compiler itself". That just happens to be the syntax, which just as
easily *could* have required a semicolon. Sloppy reasoning.
--
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 | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 08:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <789c3f36-22b4-416c-8804-b320001fd7be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129791 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:33:15 AM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > [...] > > He's also the author of "Teach yourself C" > > > > Here's an example > > > > The most commonly required header file is called STDIO.H. Here is the > > directive that includes this file > > > > #include <stdio.h> > > > > You can specify the filename in either upper- or lowercase but lowercase > > is the traditional method. ... ... > He is of course wrong about standard header names being > case-insensitive. Using uppercase might happen to work under > Windows, or under some other system with a case-insensitive > filesystem, but it's non-standard. 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012 Note that while schildt was wrong to imply that the standard required that header file names be case-insensitive, the standard does allow them to be: "The implementation may ignore distinctions of alphabetical case ..." (6.10.2p5), and that same wording was present in 3.8.2 of C89.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | already5chosen@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 03:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <0db1659a-6249-47d0-8fab-baf080d32f76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129678 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:06:50 PM UTC+3, Dan Purgert wrote: > Tim Rentsch wrote: > > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes: > >> [...] > >> The only thing is that tutorial mentions that it is "not a replacement > >> for a good C book". I didn't happen to notice any examples of "a good C > >> book" in perusing the wiki -- would anyone be able to make some > >> suggestions? > > > > How much experience did you have before putting it aside? What > > experience do you have in programming otherwise? Do you have a > > specific interest in what sorts of things you want to program, > > or is it more that you just want to pick up C again? > > Thanks Tim, Ed, Jorgen, and Ben. Given "get K&R" is the prevailing > concensus, I'll start there (maybe I'll get lucky and it's still in that > stash of programming books I kept). I think all the questions back to me > reflect Tim's above, and he had the most - so just sending this one > follow-up. > No, K&R is definitely *not* a consensus. It is not good a style guide and not even good as language reference, unless you want to ignore everything that was added to the language in C99 and C11. IMHO, K&R should not be read by beginners. It is an interesting reading for people, interested in the history of C language, but for that purpose a 1st Edition is probably more interesting than the 2nd Edition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 08:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <kfn604cmzc1.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #129848 |
already5chosen@yahoo.com writes: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:06:50 PM UTC+3, Dan Purgert wrote: > >> Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >>> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes: >>> >>>> [...] >>>> The only thing is that tutorial mentions that it is "not a replacement >>>> for a good C book". I didn't happen to notice any examples of "a good C >>>> book" in perusing the wiki -- would anyone be able to make some >>>> suggestions? >>> >>> How much experience did you have before putting it aside? What >>> experience do you have in programming otherwise? Do you have a >>> specific interest in what sorts of things you want to program, >>> or is it more that you just want to pick up C again? >> >> Thanks Tim, Ed, Jorgen, and Ben. Given "get K&R" is the prevailing >> concensus, I'll start there (maybe I'll get lucky and it's still in that >> stash of programming books I kept). I think all the questions back to me >> reflect Tim's above, and he had the most - so just sending this one >> follow-up. > > No, K&R is definitely *not* a consensus. If not a consensus, certainly a majority opinion of those who responded. > It is not good a style guide There is more than one school of thought on that question. Empirically, more code follows K&R style than doesn't. > and not even good as language reference, unless you want to ignore > everything that was added to the language in C99 and C11. The questioner wasn't asking for a language reference. He wants to get back into C. K&R is a good book for that. Not the only resource that should be consulted, but a good starting point. > IMHO, K&R should not be read by beginners. K&R should not be read as a first book by people who have never done any programming before. Neither of those conditions applies to the person who asked the question. > It is an interesting reading for people, interested in the history > of C language, but for that purpose a 1st Edition is probably more > interesting than the 2nd Edition. For what is being sought, K&R2 is a better choice than the original K&R, because of some significant changes in the language between the two (function definitions probably the most obvious of those). K&R2 is dated with respect to where C is now, but it covers nearly all of the language in terms of code that people are likely to encounter (re-)starting up. I recommend K&R not because it will answer all questions but does try to answer all the important /first/ questions. And I think that's what Dan is looking for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 17:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <slrnpe6m1d.jmn.dan@xps-linux.djph.net> |
| In reply to | #129848 |
already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:06:50 PM UTC+3, Dan Purgert wrote: >> Tim Rentsch wrote: >> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes: >> >> [...] >> >> The only thing is that tutorial mentions that it is "not a replacement >> >> for a good C book". I didn't happen to notice any examples of "a good C >> >> book" in perusing the wiki -- would anyone be able to make some >> >> suggestions? >> > >> > How much experience did you have before putting it aside? What >> > experience do you have in programming otherwise? Do you have a >> > specific interest in what sorts of things you want to program, >> > or is it more that you just want to pick up C again? >> >> Thanks Tim, Ed, Jorgen, and Ben. Given "get K&R" is the prevailing >> concensus, I'll start there (maybe I'll get lucky and it's still in that >> stash of programming books I kept). I think all the questions back to me >> reflect Tim's above, and he had the most - so just sending this one >> follow-up. >> > > No, K&R is definitely *not* a consensus. When I responded with "solved", there were four (4) people who responded. Not a single one detracted from K&R, beyond I think Jorgen* saying it was his least-favorite of the books he recommended. Things have definitely taken a left turn somewhere, what with all the extra discussions that have sprung up. *Sorry if I'm misattributing this. :) > It is not good a style guide and not even good as language reference, > unless you want to ignore everything that was added to the language in > C99 and C11. Right now, April 27th 2018, I really don't care about the differences between pre-ANSI K&R C (C78?), ANSI K&R2 C (C89?), C99, C11, or any other variants thereto. I just need to get back on my feet as it were with C programming in general. Now, that's probably going to get me in trouble at some point, which will likely prompt an enquiry to the group along the lines of "in K&R 2, they do XYZ; but gcc is puking some error; why's this not working?" > IMHO, K&R should not be read by beginners. Good thing I'm not entirely a beginner then, isn't it? > It is an interesting reading for people, interested in the history of C > language, but for that purpose a 1st Edition is probably more > interesting than the 2nd Edition. Thought about grabbing K&R(1), but that seems to be about as easy to find as hens teeth. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 11:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <lnzi1oed83.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #129864 |
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes:
> already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]
>> It is not good a style guide and not even good as language reference,
>> unless you want to ignore everything that was added to the language in
>> C99 and C11.
>
> Right now, April 27th 2018, I really don't care about the differences
> between pre-ANSI K&R C (C78?), ANSI K&R2 C (C89?), C99, C11, or any
> other variants thereto. I just need to get back on my feet as it were
> with C programming in general.
K&R1 is only of historical interest. K&R2 is mainly a tutorial, not a
reference, though it does have a reference section at the end.
The difference between pre-ANSI K&R C and C89/C90 is substantial, and
pre-ANSI C is almost entirely obsolete. Function prototypes are
probably the most significant change. If you want to learn C, I suggest
not spending time on anything older than so-called "ANSI C".
The term "ANSI C" is actually a misnomer, for reasons I won't get
into. It's best to refer the editions by year: C89/C90 (both the same
language), C99, and C11. And since 1990 the official standard has been
published by ISO, not ANSI, so ISO C90 is the most precise term for the
language described in K&R2.
As for the three editions of the standard (1989 ANSI and 1990 ISO
describe the same language), you can write valid C90 code and,
with very few exceptions, it will be valid C99 and valid C11.
If you don't need the newer features, you don't have to use them.
In my opinion, you can get a good start learning the language from K&R2
(if you have some existing programming experience). You can pick up the
changes made by C99 and C11 later on.
I think some examples in K&R2 use "implicit int", and as I recall that's
addressed in the errata. Always declare and define functions with an
explicit return type.
The definitive reference is the standard itself; I mentioned the N1570
draft upthread. Grab a copy (it's a 1.6 MB PDF) and take a quick look.
If you find the writing too dense, don't worry about it; just set it
aside and perhaps come back to it later.
[...]
> Thought about grabbing K&R(1), but that seems to be about as easy to
> find as hens teeth.
Yeah, I bought my copy in 1981. I don't even know how long it's been
out of print. But you can still find reasonably priced used copies
through online book sellers.
--
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 | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 20:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <slrnpe717u.jmn.dan@xps-linux.djph.net> |
| In reply to | #129867 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes: >> already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote: > [...] >>> It is not good a style guide and not even good as language reference, >>> unless you want to ignore everything that was added to the language in >>> C99 and C11. >> >> Right now, April 27th 2018, I really don't care about the differences >> between pre-ANSI K&R C (C78?), ANSI K&R2 C (C89?), C99, C11, or any >> other variants thereto. I just need to get back on my feet as it were >> with C programming in general. > > K&R1 is only of historical interest. K&R2 is mainly a tutorial, not a > reference, though it does have a reference section at the end. Yeah, I learned just enough google to figure that one out for myself. > The difference between pre-ANSI K&R C and C89/C90 is substantial, and > pre-ANSI C is almost entirely obsolete. Function prototypes are > probably the most significant change. If you want to learn C, I suggest > not spending time on anything older than so-called "ANSI C". > > The term "ANSI C" is actually a misnomer, for reasons I won't get > into. It's best to refer the editions by year: C89/C90 (both the same > language), C99, and C11. And since 1990 the official standard has been > published by ISO, not ANSI, so ISO C90 is the most precise term for the > language described in K&R2. The point was clearer in my head than I conveyed in the text; sorry about that. In short, while I understand that there are going to be differences between versions (and that the "Original K&R C" is very dead), I don't particularly care what version of C a textbook was written for; so long that it serves the purpose I stated -- that is, to refamiliarize myself with the language, and get back on my feet in terms of C programming. > As for the three editions of the standard (1989 ANSI and 1990 ISO > describe the same language), you can write valid C90 code and, > with very few exceptions, it will be valid C99 and valid C11. > If you don't need the newer features, you don't have to use them. In (hopefully) a few months, when the immediate goal to refamiliarize myself with writing C is sufficiently close to completion, I can intelligently ask which version would be better to focus on. > In my opinion, you can get a good start learning the language from K&R2 > (if you have some existing programming experience). You can pick up the > changes made by C99 and C11 later on. That is what it sounded like from the others, so it's what I'm going with. We'll see how on track I can stay. > I think some examples in K&R2 use "implicit int", and as I recall that's > addressed in the errata. Always declare and define functions with an > explicit return type. So far I haven't run across that, but I'm only in chapter 1 still. Working through slow / rereading the sections a few times so that it sticks. Honestly, a lot of the syntax is already starting to feel familiar again. But I've only read through ยง1.9 so far ... really have to go back and do the exercises -- kinda hard to do them on the bus. > The definitive reference is the standard itself; I mentioned the N1570 > draft upthread. Grab a copy (it's a 1.6 MB PDF) and take a quick look. > If you find the writing too dense, don't worry about it; just set it > aside and perhaps come back to it later. Yep, I think grabbed a copy. I got about to the second page. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 13:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <lnr2n0e5rc.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #129872 |
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> I think some examples in K&R2 use "implicit int", and as I recall that's
>> addressed in the errata. Always declare and define functions with an
>> explicit return type.
>
> So far I haven't run across that, but I'm only in chapter 1 still.
> Working through slow / rereading the sections a few times so that it
> sticks.
You might have run across it without realizing it. The very first
example in K&R2 section 1.1 (I'm using the Kindle edition) is:
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
printf("hello, world\n");
}
The "main()" line is an old-style non-prototype (`main()` should be
`main(void)`) *and* it relies on the obsolete "implicit int" rule
(it should be preceded with `int`):
int main(void)
I don't want to imply that this is a huge deal. It's really fairly
trivial, and most C compilers will accept the older form without
complaint, or at worst with a warning. But you should get into the
habit of using the modern form in your own code.
--
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 | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 22:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <lhMEC.98355$Xa4.87117@fx29.am4> |
| In reply to | #129873 |
On 27/04/2018 21:47, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
> [...]
>>> I think some examples in K&R2 use "implicit int", and as I recall that's
>>> addressed in the errata. Always declare and define functions with an
>>> explicit return type.
>>
>> So far I haven't run across that, but I'm only in chapter 1 still.
>> Working through slow / rereading the sections a few times so that it
>> sticks.
>
> You might have run across it without realizing it. The very first
> example in K&R2 section 1.1 (I'm using the Kindle edition) is:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> main()
> {
> printf("hello, world\n");
> }
>
> The "main()" line is an old-style non-prototype (`main()` should be
> `main(void)`) *and* it relies on the obsolete "implicit int" rule
> (it should be preceded with `int`):
>
> int main(void)
>
> I don't want to imply that this is a huge deal.
That it will only ever amount to a single line of code even in a million
line program shows the insignificance of it.
Well, unless someone strings it along multiple lines using this little
used feature of C (a reminder that it can be a rather crazy language):
i\
n\
t
m\
a\
i\
n\
(
v\
o\
i\
d
)
But one of the two more important things to take away from this is that
the language allows you to leave out the type of variable or function,
and it will assume it is int. If it isn't, then tough.
Although some compilers will warn about this.
The other thing is the use of the () parameter list in a function
declaration, which the language also allows, but compilers are less
likely to warn about it. Here it won't assume anything, but silently
allow any arguments at all to the function, even if they are contradictory:
extern void fn();
f();
f("one","two","three");
At most one of these will have the correct arguments, so at least one
call must be wrong, but the compiler will say nothing unless you
explicitly tell it to report an error.
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 14:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <lnmuxoe2s3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #129874 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 27/04/2018 21:47, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> The "main()" line is an old-style non-prototype (`main()` should be
>> `main(void)`) *and* it relies on the obsolete "implicit int" rule
>> (it should be preceded with `int`):
>>
>> int main(void)
>>
>> I don't want to imply that this is a huge deal.
[...]
> But one of the two more important things to take away from this is that
> the language allows you to leave out the type of variable or function,
> and it will assume it is int. If it isn't, then tough.
Incorrect. C99 dropped the "implicit int" rule. This:
main() { }
is a syntax error in C99 and later. Most compilers still permit it,
either in some pre-C99 or non-conforming mode or as an extension.
> Although some compilers will warn about this.
Yes, if you bother to learn how to invoke them correctly.
> The other thing is the use of the () parameter list in a function
> declaration, which the language also allows, but compilers are less
> likely to warn about it. Here it won't assume anything, but silently
> allow any arguments at all to the function, even if they are contradictory:
>
> extern void fn();
> f();
> f("one","two","three");
>
> At most one of these will have the correct arguments, so at least one
> call must be wrong, but the compiler will say nothing unless you
> explicitly tell it to report an error.
So don't do that.
--
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 | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 00:25 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <NjOEC.17433$AX1.14550@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #129877 |
On 27/04/2018 22:51, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> Incorrect. C99 dropped the "implicit int" rule. This:
> main() { }
> is a syntax error in C99 and later. Most compilers still permit it,
> either in some pre-C99 or non-conforming mode or as an extension.
>
>> Although some compilers will warn about this.
>
> Yes, if you bother to learn how to invoke them correctly.
How about compiler writers bothering to implement the language properly?
Then potentially serious sources of error will be detected WITHOUT IT
MATTERING *HOW* THE COMPILER IS INVOKED.
If that behaviour is desired, or to compile huge amounts of legacy code
without having to modify it, THEN invoke an option to allow it.
But the most commonly wanted behaviour and the safest should surely be
the default. (Compiler Writing 101?)
>> At most one of these will have the correct arguments, so at least one
>> call must be wrong, but the compiler will say nothing unless you
>> explicitly tell it to report an error.
>
> So don't do that.
So if someone wants to avoid inadvertently writing dangerous
constructions in a program, all they have to do Not To Write Them.
What a brilliant idea! And perhaps we can dispense with the
error-checking in a compiler too if every programmer is going to write
bug-free code.
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 17:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <lnin8cdvr2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #129878 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 27/04/2018 22:51, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> Incorrect. C99 dropped the "implicit int" rule. This:
>> main() { }
>> is a syntax error in C99 and later. Most compilers still permit it,
>> either in some pre-C99 or non-conforming mode or as an extension.
>>
>>> Although some compilers will warn about this.
>>
>> Yes, if you bother to learn how to invoke them correctly.
>
> How about compiler writers bothering to implement the language properly?
> Then potentially serious sources of error will be detected WITHOUT IT
> MATTERING *HOW* THE COMPILER IS INVOKED.
I AGREE THAT C COMPILERS SHOULD BE CONFORMING BY DEFAULT. MOST OF
THEM AREN'T. I AM NOT A COMPILER WRITER, SO THERE'S NOT MUCH I CAN
DO ABOUT IT. IT'S REALLY NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO LEARN HOW TO WORK
AROUND THAT. YOUR REFUSAL TO DO SO IS NOT MY FREAKING PROBLEM.
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS? STOP SCREAMING AT ME,
AND I'LL STOP SCREAMING AT YOU.
[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 | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 01:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <IoPEC.147796$Vp2.130400@fx38.am4> |
| In reply to | #129880 |
On 28/04/2018 01:23, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 27/04/2018 22:51, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> Incorrect. C99 dropped the "implicit int" rule. This:
>>> main() { }
>>> is a syntax error in C99 and later. Most compilers still permit it,
>>> either in some pre-C99 or non-conforming mode or as an extension.
>>>
>>>> Although some compilers will warn about this.
>>>
>>> Yes, if you bother to learn how to invoke them correctly.
>>
>> How about compiler writers bothering to implement the language properly?
>> Then potentially serious sources of error will be detected WITHOUT IT
>> MATTERING *HOW* THE COMPILER IS INVOKED.
>
> I AGREE THAT C COMPILERS SHOULD BE CONFORMING BY DEFAULT. MOST OF
> THEM AREN'T. I AM NOT A COMPILER WRITER, SO THERE'S NOT MUCH I CAN
> DO ABOUT IT. IT'S REALLY NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO LEARN HOW TO WORK
> AROUND THAT. YOUR REFUSAL TO DO SO IS NOT MY FREAKING PROBLEM.
> HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS? STOP SCREAMING AT ME,
> AND I'LL STOP SCREAMING AT YOU.
So please stop trying to make everything my fault:
"Yes, if you bother to learn how to invoke them correctly."
That fact is that many compilers don't behave in an ideal way without
some arm-twisting. The fact that they don't might well be because enough
people didn't express their opinions in capitals.
I've little idea about compiler options myself because I switch
constantly between them (and I used to compile generated code where
those language issues can't happen).
But plenty of people here are experts on those, and there aren't that
many commonly used compilers, so they could import the information on
how to make them compile code more strictly.
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 19:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <lnbme4dq8l.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #129881 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> So please stop trying to make everything my fault:
>
> "Yes, if you bother to learn how to invoke them correctly."
[...]
> But plenty of people here are experts on those, and there aren't that
> many commonly used compilers, so they could import the information on
> how to make them compile code more strictly.
We've tried.
--
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 | Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-04 10:36 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <mlitre-p51.ln1@gangtai.grep.be> |
| In reply to | #129878 |
On 28-04-18 01:25, bartc wrote:
>>> At most one of these will have the correct arguments, so at least one
>>> call must be wrong, but the compiler will say nothing unless you
>>> explicitly tell it to report an error.
>>
>> So don't do that.
>
> So if someone wants to avoid inadvertently writing dangerous
> constructions in a program, all they have to do Not To Write Them.
By "that", I assume Keith meant "don't write foo() when you mean foo(void)".
Once you do that, my gcc starts complaining about your f("one", "two",
"three"); as a call with too many arguments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-04 11:21 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Solved] Need some help getting to my feet |
| Message-ID | <3vWGC.147526$pC1.7144@fx07.am4> |
| In reply to | #130128 |
On 04/05/2018 09:36, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 28-04-18 01:25, bartc wrote:
>>>> At most one of these will have the correct arguments, so at least one
>>>> call must be wrong, but the compiler will say nothing unless you
>>>> explicitly tell it to report an error.
>>>
>>> So don't do that.
>>
>> So if someone wants to avoid inadvertently writing dangerous
>> constructions in a program, all they have to do Not To Write Them.
>
> By "that", I assume Keith meant "don't write foo() when you mean foo(void)".
>
> Once you do that, my gcc starts complaining about your f("one", "two",
> "three"); as a call with too many arguments.
>
Yes, but ... suppose someone writes foo() by mistake. How is that going
to be detected? Example:
c:\c>type c.c
void foo();
int main(void){
foo("one","two","three");
}
c:\c>gcc -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic -std=c11 -c c.c
c:\c>gcc --version
gcc (tdm64-1) 5.1.0
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web