Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #105778
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Return statement: anything goes? |
| Date | 2017-03-11 01:25 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87inngy57x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <o9utno$5tn$1@dont-email.me> <87o9x8yjgp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <e06a31f8-6c98-4fe3-a87f-aaddbef8d138@googlegroups.com> |
bart4858@gmail.com writes:
> On Friday, 10 March 2017 20:18:05 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> Your compiler can generate any diagnostics you like, but if you are
>> implying that you would not generate code for some of these, then you
>> are compiling yet another C dialect, just like all the other compilers
>> listed do (in default mode).
>
> Huh? Choosing to ignore or not take seriously what are obvious errors
> (see other replies) is compiling a dialect of the language?
>
> My problem (and this is one example) is that if I'm too strict, then I
> may not be able to compile existing code that might have passed the
> lower standards of other compilers.
It's more a matter of matched the language standard. That's why
rejecting correct programs like:
#include <stdio.h>
int f(void) { puts("OK"); }
int main(void) { f(); }
would create a new dialect. Some compilers on your list may not support
modern C (especially by default), so a void function might be impossible
to define making code like
f() { puts("OK"); }
very common.
> And it is still illuminating that the same issue with a program can be
> ignored, or considered a warning rather than an error, depending on
> implementation.
I suppose so, but I'm not sure it illuminates anything very interesting.
C is old and has more distinct implementations than almost any other
language. That they differ in what to warn about is not really news to
many people.
You table did not have enough detail to see in any compilers were
missing required diagnostics of where rejecting program that should be
accepted, but such things would only illuminate the fact the compilers
have bugs.
--
Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-10 19:13 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 11:59 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-10 12:34 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-10 20:17 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? bart4858@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 13:17 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-11 10:30 +1300
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-11 01:25 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 12:11 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-11 14:57 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 16:31 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-11 17:47 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 17:57 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-11 10:59 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 19:34 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-11 11:59 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-11 12:26 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-11 12:22 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-11 12:42 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-11 13:01 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Gordon Burditt <gordon@hammy.burditt.org> - 2017-03-13 16:25 -0500
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 16:43 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 18:13 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 18:27 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? gordonb.rlpr3@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-03-13 16:18 -0500
Re: Return statement: anything goes? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-11 12:44 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-11 07:43 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 18:34 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-11 10:43 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-10 12:27 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-10 22:06 +0100
Re: Return statement: anything goes? bart4858@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 13:26 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-12 05:29 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-12 10:52 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-12 12:19 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-12 12:51 +0000
csiph-web