Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #164599
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) |
| Date | 2022-01-24 15:33 -0800 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <87v8y8n1z5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <ss9u3b$jdr$1@dont-email.me> <87pmoixf59.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <sskqvb$im7$1@dont-email.me> <sWzHJ.11681$1_.11496@fx37.iad> <ssn7mo$e3q$1@dont-email.me> |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 24/01/2022 15:51, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
>>> bcc/tcc fail with a link error, unless I include this line:
>> Then they are POS compilers, or you're using them incorrectly,
>> such as forgetting to include <stdlib.h>.
>
> I said it's a link error. They both depend on the msvcrt.dll library
> for standard C functions, and strtoull is not defined in that
> library. (It is defined inside ucrtbase.dll, but then that's missing
> stuff like printf.)
An aside: I have three different versions of msvcrt.dll on my Windows
system. None of them appear to support strtoll or strtoull.
> As certain people are so fond of reminding me, the library is a
> completely different entity from the compiler, so it is apparently not
> a compiler problem as both provide a proper API entry for that
> function.
I think that may be the first time you've actually acknowledged that.
However, it's not necessary for the compiler itself to have a
"proper API entry" for a library function, or to know anything
about it. Using strtol as an example (since it's supported all the
way back to C89/C90), the compiler knows how to call it because it
sees the declaration in <stdlib.h>. (For a C90 compiler, if you
don't include the header, the compiler will assume an incorrect
declaration for strtol when it sees a call.) <stdlib.h>, which provides
the declaration, and whatever file(?) provides the code that actually
implements the function, are typically provided by the same package (or
at least they must be kept closely in synch).
A call to a standard library function is just a function call,
unless the implementation chooses to do something fancy.
Some compilers incorporate some information about some standard
library functions for the purpose of producing better diagnostics
and/or optimizations. But if, for example, a future standard
added an strtofoo() function, no *compiler* changes would be needed
to support it, as long as the headers and library implementation
supported it correctly. The same thing happens if you add your own
footobar() function and provide a header that declares it (using
a different name because names starting with "str" are reserved).
Of course if you're using an implementation that doesn't conform to
C99, you're not guaranteed to be able to use strtoll() or strtoull(),
and you'll have to find some workaround. An implementation that
depends entirely on msvcrt.dll for the C standard library cannot
conform to C99 (unless there's a later version of msvcrt.dll that I'm
not aware of). I doubt that very many people have to deal with that.
(I presume you'll agree that you are not a typical user.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2022-01-15 23:27 -0300
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-16 18:44 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2022-01-17 09:48 -0300
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-01-17 17:27 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-17 18:06 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-01-17 20:59 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-18 01:01 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2022-01-28 22:15 -0300
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-01-29 02:36 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2022-01-30 09:12 -0300
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-01-30 15:13 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-01-16 12:15 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2022-01-17 09:53 -0300
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2022-01-17 10:12 -0300
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-01-19 08:52 +0100
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-01-19 06:08 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-01-19 16:31 +0100
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-01-19 18:02 +0100
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-19 18:27 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-01-19 19:44 +0100
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-01-20 08:08 +0100
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-01-20 09:47 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-19 18:46 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-19 20:59 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-19 21:12 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-19 22:25 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-01-20 03:49 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-20 10:05 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-01-20 17:02 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-20 19:20 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-20 19:31 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-23 14:26 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-24 00:13 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2022-01-24 00:38 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-24 01:09 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-01-24 01:15 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-24 11:21 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-24 15:54 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-24 13:08 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-24 22:51 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-01-24 15:57 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-24 16:52 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-01-24 10:17 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-24 18:23 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-24 13:15 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-24 11:51 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-23 17:38 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-24 11:22 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-24 15:51 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-24 22:03 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-24 15:33 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-25 00:09 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-24 21:14 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Manfred <invalid@invalid.add> - 2022-01-26 21:01 +0100
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-26 20:53 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-01-27 03:42 +0100
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-20 19:24 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-01-21 08:07 +0100
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-21 06:01 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-01-21 17:59 +0100
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-21 17:41 +0000
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-01-21 19:26 +0100
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-21 17:12 -0800
Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type) Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2022-01-28 22:25 -0300
csiph-web