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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #5393

Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc)

From Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com>
Subject Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc)
Date 2011-06-03 23:28 +0100
Message-Id <pan.2011.06.03.22.28.37.359000@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
References (4 earlier) <cade1149-0858-4910-bf24-822af7e928ce@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com> <94qhgrFbjiU1@mid.individual.net> <d8ef521b-0d81-48a2-a9c7-b6d1a8b49c18@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <e55c4f7b-827b-4136-8d50-eeecb473c3c1@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> <5dfe258f-9f3f-4705-8d45-04590a9e7793@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
Organization Zen Internet

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:13:09 -0700, David Mathog wrote:

> Which raises the question - why do we do that?  Is there some reason
> why the compilers never seem to supply the equivalent of libc?  Sure,
> there are going to be instances where one can get away with using the
> native OS libc, but clearly there are lots of other cases where it
> doesn't work out so well.

It typically works out better than trying to use a compiler-specific libc,
which tends to fall down the moment you need to use the OS and thus use
the OS' DLLs which are linked against the OS' libc.

A compiler-specific libc would work better on Windows than on most Unices
due to the different dynamic linking models. On Windows, imported symbols
are tied to a specific DLL, so you can have multiple versions of MSVCRT
co-exist within a single process. On most Unices, you end up with symbol
conflicts. OTOH, with Windows' model you can run into problems if a
library function expects the caller to provide a FILE*, a pointer obtained
from malloc(), etc.

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

Thread

OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 13:52 -0700
  Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-02 22:16 +0100
  Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 14:18 -0700
    Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 14:37 -0700
      Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 09:59 +1200
        Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 15:18 -0700
          Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 10:35 +1200
            Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 16:01 -0700
              Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-06-03 06:45 -0700
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-03 12:13 -0700
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-03 21:35 +0200
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-04 08:48 +1200
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-03 23:28 +0100
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) gordonb.myhxj@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-04 00:32 -0500
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-04 08:06 +0200
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) gordonb.c5zg9@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-04 22:03 -0500
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-05 15:47 +1200
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-05 09:48 +0200
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-05 20:22 +1200
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-05 15:59 +0200
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 09:09 -0400
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-06 15:24 +0200
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 10:17 -0700
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 07:46 +1200
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-09 09:35 -0700
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-09 11:18 -0700
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) David Mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-06-09 12:52 -0700
                Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-10 09:14 +1200
            Re: OT: missing C99 math pieces in gcc 4.x on Solaris 8 (sparc) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 16:04 -0700

csiph-web