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 22:03 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<ssn7mo$e3q$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <C0ZFJ.134459$Gco3.62864@fx01.iad> <ss9u3b$jdr$1@dont-email.me> <87pmoixf59.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <sskqvb$im7$1@dont-email.me> <sWzHJ.11681$1_.11496@fx37.iad>

Show all headers | View raw

On 24/01/2022 15:51, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> 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:
> 
> Then they are POS compilers, or you're using them incorrectly,
> such as forgetting to include <stdlib.h>.

I said it's a link error. They both depend on the msvcrt.dll library for 
standard C functions, and strtoull is not defined in that library. (It 
is defined inside ucrtbase.dll, but then that's missing stuff like printf.)

As certain people are so fond of reminding me, the library is a 
completely different entity from the compiler, so it is apparently not a 
compiler problem as both provide a proper API entry for that function.

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