Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #8488

Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> writes:
> On 19 Jul., 02:51, Eric Sosman <esos...@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 7/17/2011 5:08 PM, tm wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > Eric Sosman wrote:
>> >> No matter: Neither is your program.  Once you invoke undefined
>> >> behavior, the implementation is not obliged to live up to anything
>> >> the C Standard promises.
>>
>> > With -Wall gcc complains a little bit:
>> > Control reaches the end of the non-void function 'main'
>> > and the function 'get_ident' expects ‘unsigned char *’
>> > but the argument is of type ‘char *’.
>>
>> > This two things have no influence on the compiler bug.
>>
>>      By my count, that makes two issues you've dismissed as "has no
>> influence" and "does not make any difference."  You may be right (I
>> will even go so far as to say you are probably right), but one has
>> to ask: What evidence supports your claims?
>
> Jacob Navia seems to support my claims (see this thread):
> ----- cite -----
> I would like (again) to thank you for your bug report. Contrary
> to the anonymous "bug" trolls before I know you are real and
> also that the bug is real.
>
> I have a corrected version of the software now. It is a very difficult
> to reprodue bug, and thanks to your test program I have been able
> to identify the culprit and correct the optimization bug.
> ----- end cite -----
>
>> Would it not have been
>> simpler to write a Simon-pure demonstration in the first place?
>
> I discovered the bug in an approx. 100000 line program.
> In two days of work I distilled this size down to the
> program I posted.

I applaud the work you did to help track down this bug, and I'm
glad that it led to a solution.

I'm just a bit confused about why you didn't (a) take another 5
minutes to correct some obvious remaining errors in your test case,
and (b) send the bug report to a more appropriate place (probably
jacob's e-mail) rather than to a language discussion group.

You've spent more time defending
    #include "stdio.h"
than you would have spent changing it to
    #include <stdio.h>

Nobody is claiming that the use of "" rather than <> was actually
relevant to the problem.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Compiler bug in lcc-win32 tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-17 02:58 -0700
  Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-17 08:39 -0400
    Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-17 09:46 -0700
      Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-07-17 13:44 -0400
        Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-17 11:23 -0700
          Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-17 11:37 -0700
          Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-07-17 15:27 -0400
            Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2011-07-18 10:02 +0200
              Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-07-18 07:32 -0400
                Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 05:07 -0700
          Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-17 13:19 -0700
            Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-07-17 20:59 +0000
              Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-17 14:22 -0700
            Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-17 14:08 -0700
              Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-07-18 20:51 -0400
                Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-18 23:46 -0700
                Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-19 08:33 -0700
      Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-17 21:04 +0200
        Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-17 12:13 -0700
      Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-17 16:44 -0400
        Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-17 23:48 -0700
          Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 03:46 -0700
            Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-18 12:07 +0100
          Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-18 09:28 -0400
            Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-18 14:37 +0100
              Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-18 08:55 -0700
            Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-18 07:42 -0700
              Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-18 18:45 +0200
              Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-19 07:42 -0400
                Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-07-19 11:52 +0000
              Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-20 06:26 -0400
                Re: Compiler bug in lcc-win32 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-20 14:25 +0200

csiph-web