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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #9224

Re: lcc-win

Show all headers | View raw

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
[...]
> The only thing that the C standard requires of a fully conforming
> implementation of C when the source code contains a syntax error is a
> diagnostic message. Whatever else the implementation chooses to do after
> issuing the diagnostic message has no impact on whether or not it
> conforms to the C standard.
>
> There only needs to be one such diagnostic, no matter how many different
> syntax errors or constraint violations the code contains. The message
> doesn't have to say where the syntax error occurred. The message doesn't
> have to say anything useful at all. It doesn't even have to be in any
> known language. About the only restrictions imposed by the standard on
> the contents of a diagnostic is that diagnostics must be identifiable as
> such, and the way they can be so identified must be explained in the
> documentation for that implementation.
[...]

And there's no requirement that diagnostics required by the language
(those for syntax errors and constraint violations) be distinguishable
from any additional diagnostics that the standard might choose to emit.

So in principle, a compiler that issues a single warning for every
translation unit (and handles #error correctly) would satisfy the
standard's requirements for diagnostics.

-- 
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

lcc-win jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-11 15:14 +0200
  Re: lcc-win tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-11 07:51 -0700
    Re: lcc-win James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-11 11:23 -0400
      Re: lcc-win tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-11 08:35 -0700
        Re: lcc-win James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-11 12:28 -0400
          Re: lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-11 11:46 -0700
            Re: lcc-win tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-12 10:20 -0700
              Re: lcc-win James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 14:00 -0400
                Re: lcc-win tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-12 11:23 -0700
                Re: lcc-win blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-08-12 11:36 -0700
                Re: lcc-win tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-12 11:42 -0700
                Re: lcc-win Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-08-12 11:52 -0700
                Re: lcc-win jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-12 20:37 +0200
    Re: lcc-win jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-11 19:45 +0200
      Re: lcc-win Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-08-11 20:12 +0000
        Re: lcc-win jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-11 22:43 +0200
        Re: lcc-win Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-11 13:43 -0700
        Re: lcc-win Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-12 08:50 +1200
    Re: lcc-win gordonb.04sy5@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-08-12 19:54 -0500

csiph-web