Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #147543
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: memcpy not memcpying? |
| Date | 2019-11-03 17:46 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <qpn0a2$dn3$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (11 earlier) <OcmvF.87562$Pt2.3193@fx23.am4> <ln36f57ul5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <EAovF.246198$IsL.142854@fx08.am4> <lnv9s169ev.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <1BAvF.13970$mB7.12243@fx32.am4> |
On 03/11/2019 14:27, Bart wrote: > On 03/11/2019 01:22, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> MS libraries support I64 and I32 width specifiers (as in "%I64d"). That >>> wouldn't have been a bad starting point. >> >> Maybe -- but the MS libraries can assume that the implementation >> supports integer types of exactly 32 and 64 bits. The C standard >> does not make that assumption. For example, <inttypes.h> > > > inttypes.h/stdint.h defines int32_t, int64_t etc for which I32, I64 etc > would have been far better solutions to the print problem than those > ugly PRI32d macros. What would you have used for int_fast32_t, int_least32_t, etc.? (I don't disagree with you that it would have been nice with non-macro format specifiers for the common cases.) > > Of course, it would require additional support within printf > implementations, but so did %zu. > >> defines macros PRId32, PRIdLEAST32, and PRIdFAST32 for int32_t, >> int_least32_t, and int_fast32_t, respectively. The type int32_t is >> optional; int_least32_t and int_fast32_t are mandatory. The standard >> has to cover more possible target systems than Windows does (or >> Linux, or POSIX), including systems that may not exist yet. > > Then it would have been reasonable to mandate I64 support only for > systems where int64_t exists. That is fair enough. > >> You can see a list of the macros in N1570 7.8.1. Some of them >> exist for each width, at least 8, 16, 32, and 64, for a total >> of 84 PRI* macros and 70 SCN* macros if I've counted correctly. >> (Exotic implementations might support other widths, or might >> not support all of 8, 16, 32, and 64 for the exact-width types.) >> You *could* implement those 154 possibilities directly in the *printf >> and *scanf functions, with distinct syntaxes in the format strings, >> but I prefer the way it's done in the standard. >> >> I'm not saying that the PRI* and SCN* macros are ideal, but I >> can't think of a cleaner way to define them while supporting the >> same functionality. No doubt your private language does it better, >> but that doesn't help C. > > I suggested a format "%?" where the compiler fills in the default type > where the format string is visible. Which is nearly always. That opens a range of complications. What should happen when the format string is not a string literal? In internationalised programs, it is common for the format string to be the result of a table lookup. (As an aside, the POSIX positional arguments in printf are a big benefit here - it's a shame they are not in the C standard.) > > But because it's not perfect, conventional format codes would still be > needed. > > (My implementation of %? was just a proof-of-concept and is not > complete, but it's an enhancement I've kept as it is genuinely handy, > even if limited to one compiler. > > (I haven't done field widths, or allowed for X or c interpretations of > an int, or forcing signed to unsigned and vice versa, or selecting > different kinds of float formats etc etc. But these can be accommodated. > > The important thing is to have a format where you don't need to know the > exact type of the thing being printed, just whether it's int, float, > string or pointer. Or, very often, not even that - just print X, > whatever type it happens to be, or print X with a given width.)) > I usually know the type of my variables and expressions, so don't see that as an important thing at all. I /do/, however, agree that the PRI macros are ugly, even though I understand why they exist.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
memcpy not memcpying? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-01 08:42 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-01 08:49 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-01 09:24 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-01 09:46 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-01 09:49 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-01 10:19 -0700
Re: memcpy not memcpying? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-01 21:14 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-01 17:16 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-01 22:42 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-11-01 21:10 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-02 11:36 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-02 02:15 -0700
Re: memcpy not memcpying? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-02 13:04 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-02 13:43 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-02 17:24 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-02 17:00 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-02 13:06 -0700
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-02 21:05 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-02 22:40 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-02 15:59 -0700
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-02 23:47 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-02 18:22 -0700
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-03 13:27 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-03 17:46 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-03 17:20 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-11-03 19:44 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-03 19:36 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-11-03 22:57 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-03 22:39 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-03 23:06 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-03 23:28 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-04 11:00 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-04 11:14 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-04 11:22 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-04 13:10 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-04 10:03 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-04 19:36 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-05 10:04 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-04 20:58 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-04 22:01 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Autist <autist69@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 12:56 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-04 09:50 -0500
Re: memcpy not memcpying? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-11-04 20:26 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 04:34 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-04 13:05 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-04 14:09 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-04 15:11 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-11-04 15:15 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-04 15:43 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-03 20:20 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-03 14:37 +1300
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-03 11:01 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-03 04:03 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-03 12:52 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-03 23:34 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-04 09:36 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-04 16:20 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-04 07:46 +1300
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-03 12:26 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-03 17:31 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-03 17:05 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-11-03 09:14 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-03 12:32 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-11-03 14:59 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-11-03 15:19 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-11-03 17:00 -0800
Re: memcpy not memcpying? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-02 11:16 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-02 17:26 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2019-11-01 06:39 -0700
Re: memcpy not memcpying? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-01 09:56 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2019-11-01 12:39 -0700
Re: memcpy not memcpying? guinness.tony@gmail.com - 2019-11-01 06:49 -0700
Re: memcpy not memcpying? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2019-11-01 20:40 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Autist <autist69@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 14:26 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-01 10:22 -0700
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-01 19:44 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Autist <autist69@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 21:31 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-01 09:39 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Autist <autist69@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 14:42 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-01 09:48 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 06:47 -0700
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Autist <autist69@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 14:58 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-01 10:22 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Autist <autist69@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 18:38 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-11-01 17:54 +0000
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Autist <autist69@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 20:24 +0100
Re: memcpy not memcpying? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-01 15:24 -0400
Re: memcpy not memcpying? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-01 23:19 +0000
csiph-web