ANN An ansic90 version of lcc-win

[jacob navia]

Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of lcc-win.

This version has none of C99 since it is a backup version of lcc-win
from September 1999. The new C standard was just out, or was going
to get out, so lcc-win was at the then current standard level 1989.

Usage:

lc -ansic90 foo.c

The "driver" lc.exe will call lcc90.exe with the appropiate
options.

Note that the latest download of lcc-win has several new executables:
lcc90.exe C90 compiler
lcclnk90.exe linker

Note that there is no optimizer, no long longs, long doubles are
the same size of doubles, no extensions etc.

This compiler emits tons of warnings since for instance assignment of
an unsigned char * to a char * is not well seen...

The only thing that was already there is the _stdcall feature. This
feature will be recognized only at the *global* level, i.e. you can
write

int fn(void)
{
int _stdcall = 56;
}

Compilation of windows headers is problematic, probably because they use
anonymous unions, long long, and other goodies.

This version is not a toy compiler however. It is able to compile
itself, and the resulting executable has 30-40% of the speed of
a program compiled with the C99 version of lcc-win.

The library used is CRTDLL.DLL, what implies that there is a C90
printf, and all other functions of the C90 standard library.

This means also that programs link with a dynamic library and
are therefore smaller than equivalent programs with lcc-win.
(Several dozen Kb)

 

[tea strainer]

Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of lcc-win.

This version has none of C99 since it is a backup version of lcc-win
from September 1999. The new C standard was just out, or was going
to get out, so lcc-win was at the then current standard level 1989.

Good news, though this interest in ISO standards has come a bit late in
the day.

I hope that in the next few months, you will be back-porting recent
optimizations etc. from the current lccwin32 to this Standards Compliant
version.

 

[luserXtrog]

Good news, though this interest in ISO standards has come a bit late in
the day.

But earlier than tomorrow!

 

[Keith Thompson]

Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of lcc-win.

[snip]

Great!

Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?

 

[Chris McDonald]

Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
lcc-win.

[snip]

Great!

Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?

I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.

We have no idea how many requests Jacob receives outside of c.l.c.,
so it is not unreasonable to believe him.

 

[Chris McDonald]

In <[email protected]>, Keith Thompson wrote:

Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
lcc-win.
[snip]

Great!

Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?

I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.

We have no idea how many requests Jacob receives outside of c.l.c.,

That's precisely why I said "may".

Then why did you definitively state

"Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however."

?

Do you read Jacob's email?

 

[Chris McDonald]

In <[email protected]>, Chris McDonald wrote:

Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
lcc-win.
[snip]

Great!

Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring
to?

I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90.
Very few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.

We have no idea how many requests Jacob receives outside of
c.l.c.,

That's precisely why I said "may".

Then why did you definitively state

"Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to
C90. Very few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however."

?

In clc terms, that statement is true.

Weasel words.
You have just sought another opportunity to shoot down Jacob's efforts.

 

[Chris McDonald]

Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever on

the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing the
point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on Jacob
Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it does
about either me or those implementations.

Richard, off your high horse.

+ You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
supporting version of his software.

+ You stated this as if you had full knowledge of all (if any)
requests that he received.

+ You do not have that knowledge.

+ You then attempted to then back out of your definitive statement claiming
some special c.l.c. universe that makes your statement true.

+ There is no such universe.

+ I stated that you took the opportunity to attempt to falsely
contradict Jacob's efforts to announce his software.

+ I made no statement about Jacob's implementations, nor any statement
that you have attacked them.


Which of my statements, above, is false?

Good luck.

 

[jacob navia]

Richard Heathfield a écrit :

There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
brain takes him seriously.

Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.

Obviously that is not enough for you. Nothing will be ever enough.

Now, try the version I presented, and you will see that it conforms to
C90. You can't say any longer that lcc-win conforms to "no standard".

 

[Nick Keighley]

Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
lcc-win.
[snip]
Great!
Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring
to?
I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different.
Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to
C90. Very few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
We have no idea how many requests Jacob receives outside of
c.l.c.,
That's precisely why I said "may".
Then why did you definitively state
    "Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform
    to C90. Very few have expressed a desire for it to do so,
    however."
?
In clc terms, that statement is true.

Weasel words.
You have just sought another opportunity to shoot down Jacob's
efforts.

Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever on
the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing the
point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on Jacob
Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it does
about either me or those implementations.

that's how I read what you wrote. Jacob can miss some subtlties.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Richard, off your high horse.

good start

I've rearranged your post slightly

Which of my statements, [below], is false?

+   You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
    supporting version of his software.

false (there was a "may" in the initial statement)

+   You stated this as if you had full knowledge of all (if any)
    requests that he received.

false. We all make statements based on the knowledge available to us.
clc seems a reasonable forum to judge someone by

+   You do not have that knowledge.

trueish. But disengenuous. he never claimed omniscience

+   You then attempted to then back out of your definitive statement claiming
    some special c.l.c. universe that makes your statement true.
false

+   There is no such universe.

how do you know? (philosopically I don't believe in alternate
universes
but it has yet to be conclusivly demonstrated that they don't exist)

+   I stated that you took the opportunity to attempt to falsely
    contradict Jacob's efforts to announce his software.

it is true that you said that, but it was a false statement

+   I made no statement about Jacob's implementations,

true but no one said you did

nor any statement that you have attacked them.

false

you sure you aren't Jacob you seem to have the same ability to think
you
persecuted

 

[Chris McDonald]

Richard H,

I was wrong when stating

"You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
supporting version of his software."

For that misquote I apologize.

You did state:

"Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.

So, you did not state "...no people...", but you did state "...very few..."
I was wong.

However, you remain ignorant of just how many such requests Jacob has received,
as there really is a universe outside of c.l.c.

Good luck,

 

[Chris McDonald]

you sure you aren't Jacob you seem to have the same ability to think

Touche, but no!

you
persecuted

Been typing long?

 

[Chris McDonald]

you sure you aren't Jacob you seem to have the same ability to think
you
persecuted

OK, enough of this banter based on my inability to read.

Edward's back with a news update on Schildt.....

-
Chris.

 

[Seebs]

OK, enough of this banter based on my inability to read.

Oh, but it was just getting fun!

Edward's back with a news update on Schildt.....

Yes, and he seems to have gone from insinuations that I'm somehow secretly
moderating against him to the notion that I ought to have been moderating
more aggressively.

There is just no pleasing some people[*].

-s
[*] This may actually not be true, but I really don't feel safe plugging
that thing in to 240V power.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Touche, but no!


Been typing long?

yes, but badly

 

[Noob]

jacob navia wrote: [spam]

I would not trust software from a persistent spammer.

 

[bartc]

jacob navia wrote: [spam]

I would not trust software from a persistent spammer.

You might have some trouble obtaining it; there was no URL in the original
post.

 

[Chris McDonald]

I was going to do JN a favour by posting it, but I can't find a URL
for it anywhere.

Here it is:

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=jacob+navia+"lcc-win"

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>
> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
> standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
> a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.

You are confusing "stating that a compiler does not conform to some
standard" with "request to make the compiler conform to some standard".