Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #98007 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Potomac <ravine557@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-05 06:32 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-12 04:18 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 119 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Potomac <ravine557@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 06:32 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-12-05 08:34 -0700
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 15:43 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-12-05 10:41 -0700
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 15:37 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 10:43 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops potomac <ravine557@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 01:13 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 10:55 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-12-07 20:34 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 11:08 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 08:23 +1300
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops potomac <ravine557@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 01:07 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-12-07 08:46 -0700
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 16:23 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops potomac <ravine557@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 01:12 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-12-07 08:49 -0700
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 15:07 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops potomac <ravine557@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 03:46 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 11:59 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 12:05 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 09:40 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 15:13 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 20:24 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 16:28 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 21:48 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:02 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 22:19 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:27 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 22:51 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:10 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-08 14:13 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-08 15:57 +0100
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-08 18:02 +1300
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-08 08:48 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 15:33 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:13 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-08 14:22 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-08 16:03 +0100
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 10:44 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 15:48 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 21:41 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-08 16:16 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 21:47 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 20:16 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 11:19 +0100
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-09 08:00 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-13 13:10 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-13 13:55 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-15 01:13 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-15 07:02 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-15 19:56 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-01-30 13:20 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-30 15:43 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-31 00:16 -0600
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-31 09:53 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-01-31 08:31 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-31 16:31 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-01 11:08 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-18 10:00 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 11:45 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-14 12:14 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-15 01:24 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 08:02 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-15 12:10 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-12-16 20:00 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-29 13:26 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-29 15:22 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-13 15:33 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-13 15:54 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-31 07:43 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 11:05 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 16:21 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-09 13:10 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:44 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-10 10:18 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:18 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:26 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 11:15 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 16:31 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:47 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 16:05 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:21 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:15 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 18:57 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:05 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:09 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:25 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:59 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 13:51 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 13:34 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 21:52 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 19:33 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 11:20 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-09 13:28 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:51 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 16:46 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 13:55 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 20:17 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 12:23 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops twalker470@googlemail.com - 2016-12-07 05:50 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-12-07 08:55 -0700
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 16:23 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-12-07 10:56 -0700
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops potomac <ravine557@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 04:14 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-07 11:03 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 08:06 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 09:23 -0800
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 17:38 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 14:01 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 19:09 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-12-09 12:38 -0700
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 00:08 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 00:16 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:59 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 11:51 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:22 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 21:52 +0000
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:32 -0500
Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:18 +0000
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 12:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnvaummfow.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #99383 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 3:10:39 PM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> supercat writes:
>> > Very few real C implementations are sold, since a C implementation
>> > would need to include not only software but also the execution
>> > platform necessary to run the program in question.
>>
>> A common misconception. The C standard explicitly places such
>> things as hardware and operating system (aka "data processing
>> system") outside the realm of implementation, in section 1 of
>> the ISO standard, and has since the initial version in 1990.
>
> Section 1.2 says that the Standard exercises no authority over the
> mechanism by which various things are accomplished; that does not
> mean that something can be a conforming C implementation without
> being able to actually to run any program that it would be required
> to accept. The combination of a compiler that generates some form
> of machine-code files and a system that can execute such files could
> be a conforming C implementation. The compiler by itself, without a
> means of running the generated machine-code files, could not be.
Most computers cannot operate without a power supply. A power plant is
not part of the C implementation.
--
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 | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 01:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfnmvfxfstq.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #99383 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 3:10:39 PM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> supercat writes:
>>> Very few real C implementations are sold, since a C implementation
>>> would need to include not only software but also the execution
>>> platform necessary to run the program in question.
>>
>> A common misconception. The C standard explicitly places such
>> things as hardware and operating system (aka "data processing
>> system") outside the realm of implementation, in section 1 of
>> the ISO standard, and has since the initial version in 1990.
>
> Section 1.2 says that the Standard exercises no authority over the
> mechanism by which various things are accomplished; [...]
No, it doesn't. It would help you to try improving your ability
to read without applying your own filters so strongly.
First please read the comments in my response to James Kuyper.
The key passage in section 1 paragraph 2 is the reference to
all minimal requirements of a data-processing system that is
capable of supporting a conforming implementation.
I believe this shows that WG14 regards "data-processing system"
and "implementation" as separate and distinct elements. Do you
agree with that impression? Or do you think WG14 has a different
opinion on the matter?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 08:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a05d8241-40e7-420e-92f6-bcc9af7124d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #99467 |
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:24:40 AM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote: > The key passage in section 1 paragraph 2 is the reference to > > all minimal requirements of a data-processing system that is > capable of supporting a conforming implementation. > > I believe this shows that WG14 regards "data-processing system" > and "implementation" as separate and distinct elements. Do you > agree with that impression? Or do you think WG14 has a different > opinion on the matter? If I offer a pair of black boxes such that feeding a program into the first yields a bunch of seemingly-arbitrary bytes, but feeding those bytes into the second yields the output the program would be required to produce, would that pair of boxes be a conforming implementation? I would suggest that it would. If I were to only offer you the first box, however, would you consider that to be a conforming C implementation? If it would, how would you distinguish it from a cryptographic pseudo-random generator that uses the input source text as its seed? I would suggest that for something to be a conforming C implementation, it must include everything necessary to take input in some text form, and produce something that can be interpreted as the proper output. The Standard doesn't describe a C implementation as something which produces a collection of information that, when fed to some other unspecified device, will cause that device to produce the required output. It describes the C implementation as something that produces the required output itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 12:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lny3zhkl7m.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #99511 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:24:40 AM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> The key passage in section 1 paragraph 2 is the reference to
>>
>> all minimal requirements of a data-processing system that is
>> capable of supporting a conforming implementation.
>>
>> I believe this shows that WG14 regards "data-processing system"
>> and "implementation" as separate and distinct elements. Do you
>> agree with that impression? Or do you think WG14 has a different
>> opinion on the matter?
>
> If I offer a pair of black boxes such that feeding a program into the
> first yields a bunch of seemingly-arbitrary bytes, but feeding those
> bytes into the second yields the output the program would be required
> to produce, would that pair of boxes be a conforming implementation?
> I would suggest that it would.
>
> If I were to only offer you the first box, however, would you consider
> that to be a conforming C implementation? If it would, how would you
> distinguish it from a cryptographic pseudo-random generator that uses
> the input source text as its seed?
If I understand these "black boxes" correctly, I would consider the
first box to be a conforming C implementation that requires the second
box (or something equivalent) to function.
> I would suggest that for something to be a conforming C implementation,
> it must include everything necessary to take input in some text form,
> and produce something that can be interpreted as the proper output.
> The Standard doesn't describe a C implementation as something which
> produces a collection of information that, when fed to some other
> unspecified device, will cause that device to produce the required
> output. It describes the C implementation as something that produces
> the required output itself.
I have a C implementation running on my computer (along with an
operating system and a lot of other software and data). Neither my
computer nor the C implementation will operate without electrical power.
The power plant that provides me with electricity is not part of the C
implementation, even though it or something like it is a prerequisite
for the C implementation to work. Neither is the Sun.
--
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 | Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 20:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.32be58264db8d4f0129@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99556 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > > Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> The key passage in section 1 paragraph 2 is the reference to > >> > >> all minimal requirements of a data-processing system that is > >> capable of supporting a conforming implementation. > >> > >> I believe this shows that WG14 regards "data-processing system" > >> and "implementation" as separate and distinct elements. Do you > >> agree with that impression? Or do you think WG14 has a different > >> opinion on the matter? > > > > If I offer a pair of black boxes such that feeding a program into the > > first yields a bunch of seemingly-arbitrary bytes, but feeding those > > bytes into the second yields the output the program would be required > > to produce, would that pair of boxes be a conforming implementation? > > I would suggest that it would. > > > > If I were to only offer you the first box, however, would you consider > > that to be a conforming C implementation? If it would, how would you > > distinguish it from a cryptographic pseudo-random generator that uses > > the input source text as its seed? > > If I understand these "black boxes" correctly, I would consider the > first box to be a conforming C implementation that requires the second > box (or something equivalent) to function. Does your answer change depending on whether the output from the first box is the result of translation phase 3, 4, 7, or 8, which is unknowable? (I guess from your answer that you believe the output of the first box is the result of translation phase 8.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 13:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfna8bewhp1.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #99511 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:24:40 AM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> The key passage in section 1 paragraph 2 is the reference to >> >> all minimal requirements of a data-processing system that is >> capable of supporting a conforming implementation. >> >> I believe this shows that WG14 regards "data-processing system" >> and "implementation" as separate and distinct elements. Do you >> agree with that impression? Or do you think WG14 has a different >> opinion on the matter? > > If I offer a pair of black boxes such that feeding a program into the > first yields a bunch of seemingly-arbitrary bytes, but feeding those > bytes into the second yields the output the program would be required > to produce, would that pair of boxes be a conforming implementation? > I would suggest that it would. > > If I were to only offer you the first box, however, would you consider > that to be a conforming C implementation? If it would, how would you > distinguish it from a cryptographic pseudo-random generator that uses > the input source text as its seed? > > I would suggest that for something to be a conforming C implementation, > it must include everything necessary to take input in some text form, > and produce something that can be interpreted as the proper output. > The Standard doesn't describe a C implementation as something which > produces a collection of information that, when fed to some other > unspecified device, will cause that device to produce the required > output. It describes the C implementation as something that produces > the required output itself. You didn't answer my question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 15:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <648df7cb-d67e-47f2-815b-ed800b7e2046@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100490 |
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 3:26:10 PM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote: > supercat writes: > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:24:40 AM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> The key passage in section 1 paragraph 2 is the reference to > >> > >> all minimal requirements of a data-processing system that is > >> capable of supporting a conforming implementation. > >> > >> I believe this shows that WG14 regards "data-processing system" > >> and "implementation" as separate and distinct elements. Do you > >> agree with that impression? Or do you think WG14 has a different > >> opinion on the matter? > > > > If I offer a pair of black boxes such that feeding a program into the > > first yields a bunch of seemingly-arbitrary bytes, but feeding those > > bytes into the second yields the output the program would be required > > to produce, would that pair of boxes be a conforming implementation? > > I would suggest that it would. > > > > If I were to only offer you the first box, however, would you consider > > that to be a conforming C implementation? If it would, how would you > > distinguish it from a cryptographic pseudo-random generator that uses > > the input source text as its seed? > > > > I would suggest that for something to be a conforming C implementation, > > it must include everything necessary to take input in some text form, > > and produce something that can be interpreted as the proper output. > > The Standard doesn't describe a C implementation as something which > > produces a collection of information that, when fed to some other > > unspecified device, will cause that device to produce the required > > output. It describes the C implementation as something that produces > > the required output itself. > > You didn't answer my question. I would expect that WG14's view would be similar to what I expressed in the last paragraph. There is no requirement that an implementation include any particular *form* of input or output device, but it must include some device that produces something that can be reasonably considered "output" and in most cases will also need to include some device that can be reasonably described as producing "input". While the Standard would not require that freestanding implementations define any observable behaviors at all, it would not meaningfully apply to any implementation that failed to do so since every defined program would be semantically equivalent to an endless loop which does nothing but access a dummy volatile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 15:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfneg06pmby.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #100564 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 3:26:10 PM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> supercat writes: >> >>> On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:24:40 AM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> The key passage in section 1 paragraph 2 is the reference to >>>> >>>> all minimal requirements of a data-processing system that is >>>> capable of supporting a conforming implementation. >>>> >>>> I believe this shows that WG14 regards "data-processing system" >>>> and "implementation" as separate and distinct elements. Do you >>>> agree with that impression? Or do you think WG14 has a different >>>> opinion on the matter? >>> >>> If I offer a pair of black boxes such that feeding a program into the >>> first yields a bunch of seemingly-arbitrary bytes, but feeding those >>> bytes into the second yields the output the program would be required >>> to produce, would that pair of boxes be a conforming implementation? >>> I would suggest that it would. >>> >>> If I were to only offer you the first box, however, would you consider >>> that to be a conforming C implementation? If it would, how would you >>> distinguish it from a cryptographic pseudo-random generator that uses >>> the input source text as its seed? >>> >>> I would suggest that for something to be a conforming C implementation, >>> it must include everything necessary to take input in some text form, >>> and produce something that can be interpreted as the proper output. >>> The Standard doesn't describe a C implementation as something which >>> produces a collection of information that, when fed to some other >>> unspecified device, will cause that device to produce the required >>> output. It describes the C implementation as something that produces >>> the required output itself. >> >> You didn't answer my question. > > I would expect that WG14's view would be similar to what I > expressed in the last paragraph. [...] The question allows, and even encourages, one of two short, simple, direct answers. (Hint: the longer one has three letters.) Rather than opt for one of the obvious simple answers, you chose instead to give a long-winded and indirect reference to some of your earlier gobbledygook. I think even you aren't sure what you're saying, but certainly others are not. For your next writing, try to remember: use short, simple, direct sentences. Your grade on this assignment: F.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 15:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <88fa224e-ea99-4b3d-ba23-8ed75128037b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #101684 |
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:33:11 PM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >>> On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:24:40 AM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >>>> The key passage in section 1 paragraph 2 is the reference to > >>>> > >>>> all minimal requirements of a data-processing system that is > >>>> capable of supporting a conforming implementation. > >>>> > >>>> I believe this shows that WG14 regards "data-processing system" > >>>> and "implementation" as separate and distinct elements. Do you > >>>> agree with that impression? Or do you think WG14 has a different > >>>> opinion on the matter? > The question allows, and even encourages, one of two short, > simple, direct answers. (Hint: the longer one has three > letters.) To the first question, no. To the second, I think they have deliberately tried to avoid expressing such an opinion, though I don't know what opinions the group or its members might hold that haven't been expressed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 07:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfn37fzfd69.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #101689 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:33:11 PM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:24:40 AM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>>>> The key passage in section 1 paragraph 2 is the reference to >>>>>> >>>>>> all minimal requirements of a data-processing system that is >>>>>> capable of supporting a conforming implementation. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe this shows that WG14 regards "data-processing system" >>>>>> and "implementation" as separate and distinct elements. Do you >>>>>> agree with that impression? Or do you think WG14 has a different >>>>>> opinion on the matter? >> >> The question allows, and even encourages, one of two short, >> simple, direct answers. (Hint: the longer one has three >> letters.) > > To the first question, no. To the second, I think they have deliberately > tried to avoid expressing such an opinion, though I don't know what > opinions the group or its members might hold that haven't been expressed. This isn't quite what I was asking. Let me clarify. Do you think WG14 intended that, eg, conventional operating systems be considered part of conventional C implementations? Examples of conventional OS are Linux or Microsoft Windows. Examples of conventional C implementations are clang or gcc. This is a yes/no question. If you don't think so, or if you're not sure for any reason, the answer is No. Otherwise the answer is Yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 11:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2ekl9$tcu$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98450 |
On 12/8/2016 11:16 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 9:47:35 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/8/2016 11:16 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 08/12/16 15:44, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > ... >> But then the linker is not part of C - it is common to all languages, so >> a C standard could not define it. > > The C standard defines what a conforming implementation of C does. Part of what > it's required to do is done, on most platforms, by a linker. The C standard > imposes no requirements on the linker itself. But if a implementation cannot > meet the C standard's requirements while using th standard linker for a given > platform, because that linker doesn't handle linkage in a way that's compatible > with the C standard's requirements, then a conforming implementation of C for > that platform would have to provide a non-standard linker of it's own. This is, > in fact, what happens with C++ on many platforms. If such a platform did not > allow the use of non-standard linkers, then a fully conforming implementation > of C would not be possible for that platform. > Actually, it is the linker which defines the requirements for the compiler. But the standard does not require a linker. All it requires is the externals be satisfied. That could, for instance, be done at run time by the program loader. No, no OS I know of does it this way. But it is within the limits of the standard. > ... >> The standard also doesn't say it has to be conforming "by default". > > People have pointed out, correctly, that most implementations don't conform in > their default mode, but no one has suggested that this violates any requirement > of the standard. That's just a straw man argument of your own invention. > I never said it had to conform by default. That's another case of your reading comprehension problem. Or trying to argue by putting words in my mouth. I'm not sure which. >> Just that it has to be conforming. > > Actually, it doesn't even say that. It only defines what being a conforming > implementation means. It nowhere imposes any requirement that anything, > anywhere in the universe, is required to match that definition. Something > advertised as conforming to the C standard should in fact conform, but that's > not because the standard says so, but because the false advertising laws say so. > To be a conforming implementation, by definition the compiler has to be conforming. More of your reading comprehension problem? Or are you once again arguing just to argue? >> The standard also doesn't say the compiler must have a means of >> compiling only (-c in gcc). But all compilers do. > > I've used compilers which could only compile - they had no capability of > calling the linker to link the program together. You had to do that explicitly > yourself. There was no need for a -c option on such a compiler, because it > corresponded to the default mode of that compiler. > Yes, I used some of those in the past, also. But that was because everything wouldn't fit on one diskette, and not everyone had hard disks (no one did when the PC first came out). >> I already agreed that you would have to specify which standard would be >> followed for a compiler which supports multiple standards. But you >> can't get by that, can you? Reading comprehension problems? > > I agree - but it's a reading comprehension issue on your part. The statement > you initially objected to was about the behavior of compilers in their default > mode. By definition, that's the mode in which no options are specified. In > particular, that means it's a mode in which no option is used to tell the > compiler to conform to a particular version of the standard. A compiler that > fully conforms to some version of the standard only when such an option is > selected does not qualify as a counter-example to Keith's claim, because it's > not in default mode. > Nope, no reading comprehension on my part. But you can't get past that, can you? You either have serious reading comprehension problems, or you are arguing just to argue. > There's other problems with your statement as well. This isn't just about > compilers that support multiple versions of the standard. There are compilers > that only conform to a single version of the standard. Even those compilers > don't conform to any version of the standard in default mode - they only > conform when you select the options that put them into conforming mode. > That's fine - and not against the standard at all. Now, let's see you name them. > Furthermore, you say that "you have to specify which standard would be > followed". That's not inherently true. It would have been entirely possible to > design a compiler that only fully conforms to C99 or C2011 when you select the > appropriate options, but which fully conforms to C90 if you select no options. > It's an odd fact, but apparently true, that there are no such compilers - at > least, no one monitoring this newsgroup (or comp.std.c) has nominated a > compiler as having that feature, without having the claim almost immediately > disproved. And it's precisely that odd fact that Keith was talking about, which you objected to. > Once again your reading comprehension problems show through. What I said was "when the compiler supports multiple standards, you have to specify which standard would be followed." And now you're saying you CAN have a compiler conform to a standard in default mode. Which one does that? All you're doing is showing what an idiot you are. Either you have serious reading comprehension problems, or you argue just to argue. Either way, you're showing you need serious help. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2elkn$p7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98544 |
My entry for the 2016 Selective Quotation of the Year contest: On 09/12/16 16:05, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > Nope, no reading comprehension on my part. (Yes, he really did write that.) -- 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 | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 13:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e38e9709-23d7-4918-b484-79ba50a0dcd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98544 |
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:05:21 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/8/2016 11:16 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > > On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 9:47:35 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 12/8/2016 11:16 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >>> On 08/12/16 15:44, Jerry Stuckle wrote: ... > >> The standard also doesn't say it has to be conforming "by default". > > > > People have pointed out, correctly, that most implementations don't conform > > in their default mode, but no one has suggested that this violates any > > requirement of the standard. That's just a straw man argument of your own > > invention. ... > I never said it had to conform by default. ... Agreed, and I never claimed that you did. That's a reading comprehension failure on your part. You apparently don't understand the term "straw man argument". It's an argument that you incorrectly implied was being used by the other side. In this particular case, the straw man argument was "A compiler is required to conform by default". You did NOT make that argument. You did not explicitly state that anyone else made that argument, either - which is good, because no one did. However, you did assert that this argument was wrong, something a sane person would bother pointing out only if someone else had actually asserted that it was correct. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed you were sane and mistaken about what the other side had said, rather than insane. However, if you're willing to concede that no one has argued that "A compiler is required to conform by default", I'll be happy to retract that assumption ;-). > ... That's another case of your > reading comprehension problem. Or trying to argue by putting words in > my mouth. The only words I'm trying to put in your mouth are 'The standard also doesn't say it has to be conforming "by default".' Did you or did you not say those words? > >> Just that it has to be conforming. > > > > Actually, it doesn't even say that. It only defines what being a conforming > > implementation means. It nowhere imposes any requirement that anything, > > anywhere in the universe, is required to match that definition. Something > > advertised as conforming to the C standard should in fact conform, but > > that's not because the standard says so, but because the false advertising > > laws say so. > To be a conforming implementation, by definition the compiler has to be > conforming. Correct. And I was also correct when I pointed out that the standard doesn't require that anything be a conforming implementation. It only defines what that term means. Every requirement imposed by the standard would be met by a world in which there was not a single conforming implementation, because it only imposes requirements on conforming implementations. ... > Yes, I used some of those in the past, also. But that was because > everything wouldn't fit on one diskette, and not everyone had hard disks > (no one did when the PC first came out). Why do you talk as if all programming was done on PCs? I had been programming for nearly a decade before I saw my first PC (they existed before that time, but the weren't ubiquitous at that time the way they were a few years later). All of the computer systems I used before that time had either hard disks, magnetic tape, or punched cards (long story) as their main means of long-term data storage. According to your own history (which is becoming steadily less believable as a result of comments like this), even more of your own experience should have predated PCs, particularly if you actually worked for builder of mainframes like IBM. > > There's other problems with your statement as well. This isn't just about > > compilers that support multiple versions of the standard. There are > > compilers that only conform to a single version of the standard. Even those > > compilers don't conform to any version of the standard in default mode - > > they only conform when you select the options that put them into conforming > > mode. > > > > That's fine - and not against the standard at all. ... And, once again, let me point out that no one has ever suggested that it was against the standard. ... > > Furthermore, you say that "you have to specify which standard would be > > followed". That's not inherently true. It would have been entirely possible > > to design a compiler that only fully conforms to C99 or C2011 when you > > select the appropriate options, but which fully conforms to C90 if you > > select no options. > > It's an odd fact, but apparently true, that there are no such compilers - at > > least, no one monitoring this newsgroup (or comp.std.c) has nominated a > > compiler as having that feature, without having the claim almost immediately > > disproved. And it's precisely that odd fact that Keith was talking about, > > which you objected to. > Once again your reading comprehension problems show through. What I > said was "when the compiler supports multiple standards, you have to > specify which standard would be followed." > > And now you're saying you CAN have a compiler conform to a standard in > default mode. ... You're having reading comprehension problems again. I said two things, 1) it would be possible to create such a compiler. 2) No one appears to have ever created such a compiler. There is no conflict between those two statements, though it is admittedly (and I did admit it) odd that both statements are true. > ... Which one does that? If I could provide an example of one which does that, it would prove that I was wrong about claim #2. I claim that #2 is correct. You're the one objecting to that claim. Providing an example should therefore be your responsibility, not mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 23:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2g14u$geo$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98610 |
On 12/9/2016 4:10 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:05:21 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/8/2016 11:16 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 9:47:35 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/8/2016 11:16 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 08/12/16 15:44, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > ... >>>> The standard also doesn't say it has to be conforming "by default". >>> >>> People have pointed out, correctly, that most implementations don't conform >>> in their default mode, but no one has suggested that this violates any >>> requirement of the standard. That's just a straw man argument of your own >>> invention. > ... >> I never said it had to conform by default. ... > > Agreed, and I never claimed that you did. That's a reading comprehension > failure on your part. You apparently don't understand the term "straw man > argument". It's an argument that you incorrectly implied was being used by the > other side. In this particular case, the straw man argument was "A compiler is > required to conform by default". You did NOT make that argument. You did not > explicitly state that anyone else made that argument, either - which is good, > because no one did. > However, you did assert that this argument was wrong, something a sane person > would bother pointing out only if someone else had actually asserted that it > was correct. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed you were sane and > mistaken about what the other side had said, rather than insane. However, if > you're willing to concede that no one has argued that "A compiler is required > to conform by default", I'll be happy to retract that assumption ;-). > Then why all the arguing about whether the compiler has to conform by default or not? >> ... That's another case of your >> reading comprehension problem. Or trying to argue by putting words in >> my mouth. > > The only words I'm trying to put in your mouth are 'The standard also doesn't > say it has to be conforming "by default".' Did you or did you not say those > words? > I agreed with those words. >>>> Just that it has to be conforming. >>> >>> Actually, it doesn't even say that. It only defines what being a conforming >>> implementation means. It nowhere imposes any requirement that anything, >>> anywhere in the universe, is required to match that definition. Something >>> advertised as conforming to the C standard should in fact conform, but >>> that's not because the standard says so, but because the false advertising >>> laws say so. >> To be a conforming implementation, by definition the compiler has to be >> conforming. > > Correct. And I was also correct when I pointed out that the standard doesn't require that anything be a conforming implementation. It only defines what that term means. Every requirement imposed by the standard would be met by a world in which there was not a single conforming implementation, because it only imposes requirements on conforming implementations. > Yes, but if it follows the standard it has to be conforming. If it doesn't follow the standard, then it's not C - it's some other language that looks like C. > ... >> Yes, I used some of those in the past, also. But that was because >> everything wouldn't fit on one diskette, and not everyone had hard disks >> (no one did when the PC first came out). > > Why do you talk as if all programming was done on PCs? I had been programming for nearly a decade before I saw my first PC (they existed before that time, but the weren't ubiquitous at that time the way they were a few years later). All of the computer systems I used before that time had either hard disks, magnetic tape, or punched cards (long story) as their main means of long-term data storage. According to your own history (which is becoming steadily less believable as a result of comments like this), even more of your own experience should have predated PCs, particularly if you actually worked for builder of mainframes like IBM. > Because that's what most people here do and are most familiar with. And FYI, I was programming around 15 years before the PC was even announced. Even several years before the Altair 8080 was announced. The first computer I programed on was an IBM mainframe with 4,000 bytes of core memory. >>> There's other problems with your statement as well. This isn't just about >>> compilers that support multiple versions of the standard. There are >>> compilers that only conform to a single version of the standard. Even those >>> compilers don't conform to any version of the standard in default mode - >>> they only conform when you select the options that put them into conforming >>> mode. >>> >> >> That's fine - and not against the standard at all. ... > > And, once again, let me point out that no one has ever suggested that it was against the standard. > Then why is everyone arguing about it? > ... >>> Furthermore, you say that "you have to specify which standard would be >>> followed". That's not inherently true. It would have been entirely possible >>> to design a compiler that only fully conforms to C99 or C2011 when you >>> select the appropriate options, but which fully conforms to C90 if you >>> select no options. >>> It's an odd fact, but apparently true, that there are no such compilers - at >>> least, no one monitoring this newsgroup (or comp.std.c) has nominated a >>> compiler as having that feature, without having the claim almost immediately >>> disproved. And it's precisely that odd fact that Keith was talking about, >>> which you objected to. >> Once again your reading comprehension problems show through. What I >> said was "when the compiler supports multiple standards, you have to >> specify which standard would be followed." >> >> And now you're saying you CAN have a compiler conform to a standard in >> default mode. ... > > > You're having reading comprehension problems again. I said two things, 1) it would be possible to create such a compiler. 2) No one appears to have ever created such a compiler. There is no conflict between those two statements, though it is admittedly (and I did admit it) odd that both statements are true. > Then why are you arguing about it? >> ... Which one does that? > > If I could provide an example of one which does that, it would prove that I was wrong about claim #2. I claim that #2 is correct. You're the one objecting to that claim. Providing an example should therefore be your responsibility, not mine. > No, I'm not objecting to that claim. I'm just asking you to prove claim #2. It's your claim to prove, not mine to disprove. But it really doesn't matter, since I think we actually are in agreement. But I still want to know why everyone is arguing about it. There seem to be a large number of people here who argue just to argue. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 10:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ae18ce41-dede-4298-a69f-d40fd0757390@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98659 |
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:44:38 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > Yes, but if it follows the standard it has to be conforming. If it > doesn't follow the standard, then it's not C - it's some other language > that looks like C. Has the C Standards Committee registered any trademark for the C brand programming language? If someone had a C implementation prior to the publication of C11, but that C implementation did not support the features added by that standard, would that person no longer have a C implementation? What would that person have?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 16:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2kfo1$siu$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98724 |
On 12/10/2016 1:18 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:44:38 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> Yes, but if it follows the standard it has to be conforming. If it >> doesn't follow the standard, then it's not C - it's some other language >> that looks like C. > > Has the C Standards Committee registered any trademark for the C brand > programming language? > > If someone had a C implementation prior to the publication of C11, but that > C implementation did not support the features added by that standard, would > that person no longer have a C implementation? What would that person have? > Let's say you have four horses and three cows. You now call one of the cows a horse. How many horses do you have? The answer is still four. Calling a cow a horse does not make it a horse. And if the implementation supported the features of a previous standard, then it would be a C implementation according to that standard. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 08:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2dppj$1m6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98437 |
On 09/12/16 02:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/8/2016 11:16 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 08/12/16 15:44, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/8/2016 9:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 08/12/16 14:13, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 12/7/2016 6:33 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 3:13:27 PM UTC-5, Jerry >>>>>> Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/7/2016 12:40 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> Most C compilers are not conforming by default, and require >>>>>>>> some added options to make them (atte >>>>>> I >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you say that? There is nothing that says a compiler >>>>>>> can't add features, as long as it does everything the >>>>>>> standard says it does. >>>>>> >>>>>> ... and doesn't do anything the standard says is shouldn't do. >>>>>> However, it turns out that most compilers do in fact fail to do >>>>>> something required by the standard, or do something prohibited >>>>>> by the standard, when invoked in their default mode. The >>>>>> compilers I've used most frequently over the past couple of >>>>>> decades all take an -ansi option that puts them in C90 mode; >>>>>> without that option, they don't fully conform to any version of >>>>>> the C standard. Most of them also require the -lm option to >>>>>> correctly handle code that uses <math.h>, and gcc also requires >>>>>> -pedantic. There was an extended discussion of this issue a few >>>>>> years ago in this newsgroup. In the end, only two very obscure >>>>>> compilers were identified that supposedly fully conformed in >>>>>> their default mode - and given how obscure they were, that >>>>>> conclusion might have simply been the result of nobody being >>>>>> aware of the the ways that they failed to conform. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When they support multiple versions of the standard, they need to >>>>> know which version of the standard to use. >>>> >>>> And so they require a switch, without which they are non-conforming >>>> to any standard (or at least that's the case for gcc). >>>> >>>>> But -lm is a linker parameter, not compiler. >>>> >>>> Yes. Since we have been using the word "compiler" it's a >>>> reasonable objection. Nevertheless, if we take the linker out of >>>> the equation, *no* compiler is conforming, because to leave out the >>>> linker necessarily means leaving out TP8! >>>> >>>> And if we put the linker back into the equation, gcc fails to >>>> conform even when told to by -std=c??, unless the additional magic >>>> rune -lm is added, just as James explained to you already. >>>> >>> >>> The C standard doesn't say anything about the linker (although it >>> does extensively discuss linkage) or how libraries are linked in. >> >> The C Standard has this to say about linking: "8. All external object >> and function references are resolved. Library components are linked to >> satisfy external references to functions and objects not defined in the >> current translation. All such translator output is collected into a >> program image which contains information needed for execution in its >> execution environment." >> >> So it says that linking *must happen*, conceptually at the very least >> (as with an interpreter). If the linking step is omitted, the >> implementation is not a conforming implementation. In other words, the >> program must be able to execute, or there's no point. >> > > It doesn't say there has to be a link step. See the above paragraph, which says that "library components are linked to satisfy external references". TP8 is describing a link step, in fact. > It just states that the > external references must be resolved - not how the resolution is done. > It could be done by the compiler, for instance. Yes, but gcc /fails/ (in default mode) to resolve those external references for math library functions, and therefore it doesn't do what the standard says must be done, and therefore it doesn't conform (in default mode). > But then the linker is not part of C - it is common to all languages, so > a C standard could not define it. We're talking about what the standard requires, and the standard requires that external references are resolved, which gcc (in default mode) does not do for math functions, and therefore gcc is a counter-example to your claim. > >>> But I would guess the reason for the -lm flag would be you might want >>> to use libm, or you might have another library you want for the math >>> functions. But I didn't write the compiler, so I don't know what they >>> were thinking. >> >> The reason, for the purposes of this discussion, *doesn't matter*. What >> matters is that gcc is an example of a compiler that is not conforming >> by default. >> > > The standard also doesn't say it has to be conforming "by default". > Just that it has to be conforming. As James rightly points out, it doesn't even say that. There's nothing to stop you writing a non-conforming C implementation. But your claim was that most compilers are conforming in default mode. > The standard also doesn't say the compiler must have a means of > compiling only (-c in gcc). But all compilers do. The Standard doesn't even say there must be a compiler. C interpreters exist. But the claim that you made is that most compilers conform when invoked in default mode. For a compiler to be conforming, it must meet all the requirements of the standard for conforming implementations. If it fails to meet any of those requirements in default mode, it does not conform in default mode. >>>>> And I always thought gcc was -pedantic. I didn't realize it >>>>> needed a flag to make it even more so. >>>> >>>> gcc in default mode is remarkably forgiving, as long as you don't >>>> sin (or cos, or tan, or anything else math.h-y). >>>> >>> >>> Yes, sometimes too forgiving. >> >> Again, this is in direct contrast to your claim that "being conforming >> doesn't mean they have to flag non-conforming code". In fact, it >> certainly does mean that, and if gcc is too forgiving, then gcc is again >> failing to conform. >> > > I already agreed that you would have to specify which standard would be > followed for a compiler which supports multiple standards. James has already pointed out why that isn't true, so I won't bother. But that isn't the point at issue. The point at issue is your claim that most compilers are conforming in default mode. You have yet to produce a single example to support your case, and it has been shown in some detail how gcc, probably the most widely-installed compiler in the world, is a counter-example. > But you > can't get by that, can you? Reading comprehension problems? Is it really so terribly hard to admit error that you have to hurl insults left, right and centre in a desperate but by now rather familiar misguided attempt to throw sand in people's eyes? Do you really think that all this nonsense about singing pigs fools anyone? > But then the standard also doesn't say the compiler must be conforming > in its default mode, does it? No, the standard imposes no requirements on non-conforming implementations. But that isn't the point at issue. The claim you made was that most compilers /are/ conforming in default mode. >> You claimed that most compilers are conforming in their default mode, >> but so far you have not produced the names of any compilers that do >> conform in their default mode. >> > > I already agreed that you would have to specify which standard would be > followed for a compiler which supports multiple standards. Not so, as James has already explained so I won't repeat it. It isn't the point at issue. What you actually claimed was that most compilers, when invoked in default mode, are conforming. Clearly a compiler that requires a switch in order to conform is not conforming in its default mode (i.e. without the switch being activated). > But you > can't get by that, can you? Reading comprehension problems? I'll try to make myself clearer. Here is the relevant history: Keith Thompson wrote: "Most C compilers are not conforming by default, and require some added options to make them (attempt to) conform to (some version of) the standard." You replied: "Why do you say that? There is nothing that says a compiler can't add features, as long as it does everything the standard says it does." I replied with a comment about a requirement to support scanf (which the OP claimed his implementation did not). You replied: "The question wasn't about whether VS compiled a program with scanf() or not. The question was why he stated "Most C compilers are not conforming by default"." And later in the same article you added: "I was responding to an over-generalized statement." When I then asked you whether any C compilers conform by default, you replied: "I think most of them do." So far we have seen evidence to the contrary but no evidence in support. Instead, you seem to be psyching yourself up for your usual ad hominem attacks in the hope that nobody will notice that you got it wrong again. The rest of us deal with "getting it wrong again" by apologising and retracting, not by hurling personal insults. It is a course that I can recommend to you. > But then the standard also doesn't say the compiler must be conforming > in its default mode, does it? Surely you *cannot* be this stupid? The claim you made, the claim that is being challenged, is that most compilers /are/ conforming in their default mode. -- 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 | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 11:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2el8d$vu8$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98456 |
On 12/9/2016 3:26 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 09/12/16 02:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/8/2016 11:16 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 08/12/16 15:44, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/8/2016 9:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 08/12/16 14:13, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> On 12/7/2016 6:33 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 3:13:27 PM UTC-5, Jerry >>>>>>> Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/7/2016 12:40 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> Most C compilers are not conforming by default, and require >>>>>>>>> some added options to make them (atte >>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do you say that? There is nothing that says a compiler >>>>>>>> can't add features, as long as it does everything the >>>>>>>> standard says it does. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... and doesn't do anything the standard says is shouldn't do. >>>>>>> However, it turns out that most compilers do in fact fail to do >>>>>>> something required by the standard, or do something prohibited >>>>>>> by the standard, when invoked in their default mode. The >>>>>>> compilers I've used most frequently over the past couple of >>>>>>> decades all take an -ansi option that puts them in C90 mode; >>>>>>> without that option, they don't fully conform to any version of >>>>>>> the C standard. Most of them also require the -lm option to >>>>>>> correctly handle code that uses <math.h>, and gcc also requires >>>>>>> -pedantic. There was an extended discussion of this issue a few >>>>>>> years ago in this newsgroup. In the end, only two very obscure >>>>>>> compilers were identified that supposedly fully conformed in >>>>>>> their default mode - and given how obscure they were, that >>>>>>> conclusion might have simply been the result of nobody being >>>>>>> aware of the the ways that they failed to conform. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When they support multiple versions of the standard, they need to >>>>>> know which version of the standard to use. >>>>> >>>>> And so they require a switch, without which they are non-conforming >>>>> to any standard (or at least that's the case for gcc). >>>>> >>>>>> But -lm is a linker parameter, not compiler. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Since we have been using the word "compiler" it's a >>>>> reasonable objection. Nevertheless, if we take the linker out of >>>>> the equation, *no* compiler is conforming, because to leave out the >>>>> linker necessarily means leaving out TP8! >>>>> >>>>> And if we put the linker back into the equation, gcc fails to >>>>> conform even when told to by -std=c??, unless the additional magic >>>>> rune -lm is added, just as James explained to you already. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The C standard doesn't say anything about the linker (although it >>>> does extensively discuss linkage) or how libraries are linked in. >>> >>> The C Standard has this to say about linking: "8. All external object >>> and function references are resolved. Library components are linked to >>> satisfy external references to functions and objects not defined in the >>> current translation. All such translator output is collected into a >>> program image which contains information needed for execution in its >>> execution environment." >>> >>> So it says that linking *must happen*, conceptually at the very least >>> (as with an interpreter). If the linking step is omitted, the >>> implementation is not a conforming implementation. In other words, the >>> program must be able to execute, or there's no point. >>> >> >> It doesn't say there has to be a link step. > > See the above paragraph, which says that "library components are linked > to satisfy external references". TP8 is describing a link step, in fact. > That is correct. But it does not say there has to be a link step. Only that the external references must be satisfied. >> It just states that the >> external references must be resolved - not how the resolution is done. >> It could be done by the compiler, for instance. > > Yes, but gcc /fails/ (in default mode) to resolve those external > references for math library functions, and therefore it doesn't do what > the standard says must be done, and therefore it doesn't conform (in > default mode). > So? Where does the standard say that it is required that it be done in default mode? What if you're compiling x.c and calling functions defined in y.o? According to you, you shouldn't have to specify y.o to the linker because that would not be the default. The standard says nothing about either. >> But then the linker is not part of C - it is common to all languages, so >> a C standard could not define it. > > We're talking about what the standard requires, and the standard > requires that external references are resolved, which gcc (in default > mode) does not do for math functions, and therefore gcc is a > counter-example to your claim. > That is correct. And all it requires is that external references be resolved. It doesn't say *how* those references must be resolved. They could, for instance, be resolved at program load time by the OS. Perfectly within the standard. >> >>>> But I would guess the reason for the -lm flag would be you might want >>>> to use libm, or you might have another library you want for the math >>>> functions. But I didn't write the compiler, so I don't know what they >>>> were thinking. >>> >>> The reason, for the purposes of this discussion, *doesn't matter*. What >>> matters is that gcc is an example of a compiler that is not conforming >>> by default. >>> >> >> The standard also doesn't say it has to be conforming "by default". >> Just that it has to be conforming. > > As James rightly points out, it doesn't even say that. There's nothing > to stop you writing a non-conforming C implementation. But your claim > was that most compilers are conforming in default mode. > By definition, to be a conforming implementation it must conform to the standard. But I see that is beyond your limited comprehension. >> The standard also doesn't say the compiler must have a means of >> compiling only (-c in gcc). But all compilers do. > > The Standard doesn't even say there must be a compiler. C interpreters > exist. But the claim that you made is that most compilers conform when > invoked in default mode. For a compiler to be conforming, it must meet > all the requirements of the standard for conforming implementations. If > it fails to meet any of those requirements in default mode, it does not > conform in default mode. > Which I already admitted that was wrong. But you can't let it go, can you? You either have serious reading comprehension problems, or you are arguing just to argue. >>>>>> And I always thought gcc was -pedantic. I didn't realize it >>>>>> needed a flag to make it even more so. >>>>> >>>>> gcc in default mode is remarkably forgiving, as long as you don't >>>>> sin (or cos, or tan, or anything else math.h-y). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, sometimes too forgiving. >>> >>> Again, this is in direct contrast to your claim that "being conforming >>> doesn't mean they have to flag non-conforming code". In fact, it >>> certainly does mean that, and if gcc is too forgiving, then gcc is again >>> failing to conform. >>> >> >> I already agreed that you would have to specify which standard would be >> followed for a compiler which supports multiple standards. > > James has already pointed out why that isn't true, so I won't bother. > But that isn't the point at issue. The point at issue is your claim that > most compilers are conforming in default mode. You have yet to produce a > single example to support your case, and it has been shown in some > detail how gcc, probably the most widely-installed compiler in the > world, is a counter-example. > Which I already admitted that was wrong. But you can't let it go, can you? You either have serious reading comprehension problems, or you are arguing just to argue. >> But you >> can't get by that, can you? Reading comprehension problems? > > Is it really so terribly hard to admit error that you have to hurl > insults left, right and centre in a desperate but by now rather familiar > misguided attempt to throw sand in people's eyes? Do you really think > that all this nonsense about singing pigs fools anyone? > Which I already admitted that was wrong. But you can't let it go, can you? You either have serious reading comprehension problems, or you are arguing just to argue. >> But then the standard also doesn't say the compiler must be conforming >> in its default mode, does it? > > No, the standard imposes no requirements on non-conforming > implementations. But that isn't the point at issue. The claim you made > was that most compilers /are/ conforming in default mode. > I never claimed it required ANYTHING from a non-conforming implementation. And I already admitted that was wrong. But you can't let it go, can you? You either have serious reading comprehension problems, or you are arguing just to argue. >>> You claimed that most compilers are conforming in their default mode, >>> but so far you have not produced the names of any compilers that do >>> conform in their default mode. >>> >> >> I already agreed that you would have to specify which standard would be >> followed for a compiler which supports multiple standards. > > Not so, as James has already explained so I won't repeat it. It isn't > the point at issue. What you actually claimed was that most compilers, > when invoked in default mode, are conforming. Clearly a compiler that > requires a switch in order to conform is not conforming in its default > mode (i.e. without the switch being activated). > Which I already admitted that was wrong. But you can't let it go, can you? You either have serious reading comprehension problems, or you are arguing just to argue. >> But you >> can't get by that, can you? Reading comprehension problems? > > I'll try to make myself clearer. Here is the relevant history: > > Keith Thompson wrote: "Most C compilers are not conforming by default, > and require some added options to make them (attempt to) conform to > (some version of) the standard." > You replied: "Why do you say that? There is nothing that says a compiler > can't add features, as long as it does everything the standard says it > does." > I replied with a comment about a requirement to support scanf (which the > OP claimed his implementation did not). > You replied: "The question wasn't about whether VS compiled a program > with scanf() or not. The question was why he stated "Most C compilers > are not conforming by default"." And later in the same article you > added: "I was responding to an over-generalized statement." > > When I then asked you whether any C compilers conform by default, you > replied: "I think most of them do." > > So far we have seen evidence to the contrary but no evidence in support. > Instead, you seem to be psyching yourself up for your usual ad hominem > attacks in the hope that nobody will notice that you got it wrong again. > The rest of us deal with "getting it wrong again" by apologising and > retracting, not by hurling personal insults. It is a course that I can > recommend to you. > Oh, you're clear all right. You have once again proven you either have serious reading comprehension problems, or you are arguing just to argue. >> But then the standard also doesn't say the compiler must be conforming >> in its default mode, does it? > > Surely you *cannot* be this stupid? The claim you made, the claim that > is being challenged, is that most compilers /are/ conforming in their > default mode. > Which I already admitted that was wrong. But you can't let it go, can you? You either have serious reading comprehension problems, or you are arguing just to argue. One thing that is obvious. You are in the need of serious help. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2em6n$4c9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98548 |
On 09/12/16 16:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/9/2016 3:26 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 09/12/16 02:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/8/2016 11:16 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: <snip> >>>> >>>> The C Standard has this to say about linking: "8. All external object >>>> and function references are resolved. Library components are linked to >>>> satisfy external references to functions and objects not defined in the >>>> current translation. All such translator output is collected into a >>>> program image which contains information needed for execution in its >>>> execution environment." >>>> >>>> So it says that linking *must happen*, conceptually at the very least >>>> (as with an interpreter). If the linking step is omitted, the >>>> implementation is not a conforming implementation. In other words, the >>>> program must be able to execute, or there's no point. >>>> >>> >>> It doesn't say there has to be a link step. >> >> See the above paragraph, which says that "library components are linked >> to satisfy external references". TP8 is describing a link step, in fact. >> > > That is correct. But it does not say there has to be a link step. Only > that the external references must be satisfied. That is what I mean by a link step. The point is, those references must be satisfied, and gcc fails to satisfy them for math library functions when invoked in its default mode. Which bit of this don't you understand? > >>> It just states that the >>> external references must be resolved - not how the resolution is done. >>> It could be done by the compiler, for instance. >> >> Yes, but gcc /fails/ (in default mode) to resolve those external >> references for math library functions, and therefore it doesn't do what >> the standard says must be done, and therefore it doesn't conform (in >> default mode). >> > > So? Where does the standard say that it is required that it be done in > default mode? The Standard has very little to say about implementations, and it certainly doesn't require that implementations must be conforming without any command line switches. It is *you* who claimed that most compilers /do/ conform in default mode, and that is the claim that is being challenged. <snip> >>> The standard also doesn't say it has to be conforming "by default". >>> Just that it has to be conforming. >> >> As James rightly points out, it doesn't even say that. There's nothing >> to stop you writing a non-conforming C implementation. But your claim >> was that most compilers are conforming in default mode. >> > > By definition, to be a conforming implementation it must conform to the > standard. Yes. And if it doesn't conform in default mode, but instead requires some switches to push it into conformance, then it doesn't conform in default mode. It's a tautology, for pity's sake! > But I see that is beyond your limited comprehension. What is beyond my limited comprehension is how you can so completely fail to see such ludicrously obvious points even though they are spelled out to you in painstaking detail. >>> The standard also doesn't say the compiler must have a means of >>> compiling only (-c in gcc). But all compilers do. >> >> The Standard doesn't even say there must be a compiler. C interpreters >> exist. But the claim that you made is that most compilers conform when >> invoked in default mode. For a compiler to be conforming, it must meet >> all the requirements of the standard for conforming implementations. If >> it fails to meet any of those requirements in default mode, it does not >> conform in default mode. >> > > Which I already admitted that was wrong. Ah, that will save us a lot of time. Did you also do the decent thing by apologising to the people you insulted for having the temerity to disagree with your mistaken opinion? <balderdash snipped> -- 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 | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 23:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2g1ac$geo$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98555 |
On 12/9/2016 11:31 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 09/12/16 16:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/9/2016 3:26 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 09/12/16 02:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/8/2016 11:16 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > <snip> >>>>> >>>>> The C Standard has this to say about linking: "8. All external object >>>>> and function references are resolved. Library components are linked to >>>>> satisfy external references to functions and objects not defined in >>>>> the >>>>> current translation. All such translator output is collected into a >>>>> program image which contains information needed for execution in its >>>>> execution environment." >>>>> >>>>> So it says that linking *must happen*, conceptually at the very least >>>>> (as with an interpreter). If the linking step is omitted, the >>>>> implementation is not a conforming implementation. In other words, the >>>>> program must be able to execute, or there's no point. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It doesn't say there has to be a link step. >>> >>> See the above paragraph, which says that "library components are linked >>> to satisfy external references". TP8 is describing a link step, in fact. >>> >> >> That is correct. But it does not say there has to be a link step. Only >> that the external references must be satisfied. > > That is what I mean by a link step. The point is, those references must > be satisfied, and gcc fails to satisfy them for math library functions > when invoked in its default mode. Which bit of this don't you understand? > That is ONE WAY to satisfy the external references. It is not the only possible way. >> >>>> It just states that the >>>> external references must be resolved - not how the resolution is done. >>>> It could be done by the compiler, for instance. >>> >>> Yes, but gcc /fails/ (in default mode) to resolve those external >>> references for math library functions, and therefore it doesn't do what >>> the standard says must be done, and therefore it doesn't conform (in >>> default mode). >>> >> >> So? Where does the standard say that it is required that it be done in >> default mode? > > The Standard has very little to say about implementations, and it > certainly doesn't require that implementations must be conforming > without any command line switches. It is *you* who claimed that most > compilers /do/ conform in default mode, and that is the claim that is > being challenged. > > <snip> > And I have already agreed multiple times that statement was incorrect. But you can't let it go, can you? Either you have reading comprehension problems, or you're arguing just to argue. >>>> The standard also doesn't say it has to be conforming "by default". >>>> Just that it has to be conforming. >>> >>> As James rightly points out, it doesn't even say that. There's nothing >>> to stop you writing a non-conforming C implementation. But your claim >>> was that most compilers are conforming in default mode. >>> >> >> By definition, to be a conforming implementation it must conform to the >> standard. > > Yes. And if it doesn't conform in default mode, but instead requires > some switches to push it into conformance, then it doesn't conform in > default mode. It's a tautology, for pity's sake! > And I have already agreed multiple times that statement was incorrect. But you can't let it go, can you? Either you have reading comprehension problems, or you're arguing just to argue. >> But I see that is beyond your limited comprehension. > > What is beyond my limited comprehension is how you can so completely > fail to see such ludicrously obvious points even though they are spelled > out to you in painstaking detail. > And I have already agreed multiple times that statement was incorrect. But you can't let it go, can you? Either you have reading comprehension problems, or you're arguing just to argue. >>>> The standard also doesn't say the compiler must have a means of >>>> compiling only (-c in gcc). But all compilers do. >>> >>> The Standard doesn't even say there must be a compiler. C interpreters >>> exist. But the claim that you made is that most compilers conform when >>> invoked in default mode. For a compiler to be conforming, it must meet >>> all the requirements of the standard for conforming implementations. If >>> it fails to meet any of those requirements in default mode, it does not >>> conform in default mode. >>> >> >> Which I already admitted that was wrong. > > Ah, that will save us a lot of time. > > Did you also do the decent thing by apologising to the people you > insulted for having the temerity to disagree with your mistaken opinion? > > <balderdash snipped> > And I have already agreed multiple times that statement was incorrect. But you can't let it go, can you? Either you have reading comprehension problems, or you're arguing just to argue. And no, I don't apologize to pigs. Nor do I demand an apology from them. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web