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

From	Manfred <noname@add.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: on an analogy for verifying whether another digit fits (into an unsigned type)
Date	2022-01-27 03:42 +0100
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<sst0qm$11t$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(11 earlier) <ssn7mo$e3q$1@dont-email.me> <87v8y8n1z5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <ssnf4l$gb1$1@dont-email.me> <sss99t$16ui$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ssscd6$l3f$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/26/2022 9:53 PM, Bart wrote:
> On 26/01/2022 20:01, Manfred wrote:
>> On 1/25/2022 1:09 AM, Bart wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2022 23:33, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>> On 24/01/2022 15:51, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> 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.)
>>>>
>>>> An aside: I have three different versions of msvcrt.dll on my Windows
>>>> system.  None of them appear to support strtoll or strtoull.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I think that may be the first time you've actually acknowledged that.
>>>>
>>>> However, it's not necessary for the compiler itself to have a
>>>> "proper API entry" for a library function, or to know anything
>>>> about it.  Using strtol as an example (since it's supported all the
>>>> way back to C89/C90), the compiler knows how to call it because it
>>>> sees the declaration in <stdlib.h>.
>>>
>>> The declaration is what I mean by 'API' entry. I'm using 'API' to 
>>> mean all the information needed by the programmer to write calls to a 
>>> function, and for the compiler to check those calls and generate the 
>>> proper code, usually inside some header file.
>>>
>>>
>>>> (I presume you'll agree that you are not a typical user.)
>>>
>>> I guess not. I make considerably more use of the C standard library 
>>> from outside C than inside it. However msvcrt.dll exports just over 
>>> 1300 functions, but I only ever use a few dozen. strtoull is one of 
>>> the 1250 or so that I haven't yet needed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Most importantly, msvcrt.dll is *not* a C standard library. It is a 
>> Microsoft library that exports C runtime functions for their own 
>> products [*].
>> It is not documented anywhere as a C *standard* library.
>> To be explicit, this means that you can't complain if it does not 
>> export a conforming implementation of C, and if you find 
>> inconsistencies with the standard it is certainly not the fault 
>> neither of the language nor of the standard.
>>
>> It is your choice if you want to use it,
> 
> I think I first came across this library when I started to work with 
> Windows sometime in the 90s.
> 
> I didn't really associate with it C (I didn't use it from that 
> language); it seemed just another set of WinAPI functions from the docs, 
> all of which used C-style declarations.
> 
> It seems to be still present on every Windows OS, so I don't think it's 
> going anywhere.
> 
> msvcrt.dll is also used by gcc/tdm on Windows as well as tcc, for 
> building programs. If it suddenly disappeared, then quite a lot of 
> programs would stop working...
> 
> ... including gcc.exe and tcc.exe which themselves both import msvcrt.dll.
> 

Yes, msvcrt.dll has been part of Windows for a very long time, and most 
probably it will stay this way, although one has to notice that with 
Microsoft this kind of prediction has gotten harder and harder as of 
recent - I believe they have thrown out more stuff out of the window in 
the last five years than in the previous 35, to the point that today it 
is even impossible to get redistributables that were first released in 2010.

But that was not my point.

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