Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type)

From	Bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type)
Date	2022-01-24 00:13 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<sskqvb$im7$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <ss9g7q$5ud$1@dont-email.me> <ss9l6b$ctv$1@dont-email.me> <C0ZFJ.134459$Gco3.62864@fx01.iad> <ss9u3b$jdr$1@dont-email.me> <87pmoixf59.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 23/01/2022 22:26, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 19/01/2022 18:46, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> On 19/01/2022 17:02, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Complicated. I used the simpler **C** code below. It's runtime was 10%
>>>> slower than the C++ (that is, elapsed time of the 10,000 outer loop for
>>>> both).
>>> I just use strtoll.  Why reinvent the wheel?
>>
>> It needs to be stroull() for this purpose, which is more elusive (gcc
>> has it on Windows, but the two other compilers I have don't),
> 
> gcc does not provide strtoll() or strtoull().  Both are provided by the
> library, not by the compiler.  (And both were introduced in C99, so I'd
> be at least mildly surprised by an implementation that provides one
> but not the other.)
> 
> I know you're tired of people pointing out that the compiler (gcc
> in this case) does not provide library functions.  The solution is
> for you to stop making that mistake.  Or should I assume you enjoy
> these arguments?

gcc/tdm compiles programs using strtoull.

bcc/tcc fail with a link error, unless I include this line:

   #define strtoull _strtoui64

but then gcc will complain about it.

Actually why that is the case, I don't know, don't care, and probably no 
else cares who just installs a 'bundle' without wanting to trace and 
check the provenance of each library function that it comes with.

The above is enough for me to think twice about using strtoull in a project.

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