Compiling a C program through another C program

[CBFalconer]

(e-mail address removed) writes

No it's not. As a regular here for the last 14 years I say it is
ON topic.

Then you must have failed to read most posts on topicality for the
past 14 years. If you can find a reference to "spawn1" in the C
standard I will retract.

 

[Malcolm McLean]

I see, so as a member of the ISO C working group, you fail to
understand that the C standard defines the language. Anything defined
in the C standard is part of the C language, and anything not in the C
standard is not part of the language, but a non-standard extension.

ISO is a standard for C.
The leading applications software company in the world has chosen to
deprecate substantial portions of that standard, the latest version has not
been widely implemented, and large numbers of smaller platforms have never
adhered closely to it.

I think we are moving away from the ANSI standard phase of C's history and
into something new. What that will be is a good question.

 

[Tor Rustad]

Chris Hills wrote:

[...]

However as a member of the ISO C and MISRA -C groups I have to disagree
with your artificial and incorrect view of topicality on this NG.

As a member of the ISO C and MISRA C std groups, I would prefer if you
focus on your field of expertise.


I don't mind, if you go OT with safety-critical considerations or
embedded viewpoints, but spawnl() & YATD (yet-another topicality
discussion) with R.H., is a waste of our time.

 

[Sjouke Burry]

So, you want to flood the newsgroup with anything from windows(4 versions),
40 dialects of unix, 100 types of embedded systems, all Apple types etc, etc...
just as long as its done in c(c++) or a system call in c(c++) ???????????????
If you win, I'l chuck out this newsgroup.
Go look at sci.astro or alt.astronomy to get a taste of "Anything goes".

 

[santosh]

So, you want to flood the newsgroup with anything from windows(4
versions), 40 dialects of unix, 100 types of embedded systems, all Apple
types etc, etc... just as long as its done in c(c++) or a system call in
c(c++) ??????????????? If you win, I'l chuck out this newsgroup.
Go look at sci.astro or alt.astronomy to get a taste of "Anything goes".

I think you are complaining to the wrong poster. As far as I can tell, it's
Chris Hills that wants to allow non-Standard discussions.

 

[santosh]

ISO is a standard for C.
The leading applications software company in the world has chosen to
deprecate substantial portions of that standard, the latest version has
not been widely implemented, and large numbers of smaller platforms have
never adhered closely to it.

Given the nature and quality of software produced by this "leading
applications software company", I'm not surprised that they have chosen to
break yet another standard, nor am I displeased.

I think we are moving away from the ANSI standard phase of C's history and
into something new. What that will be is a good question.

Just as surely we are moving away from desktop computing dominated by
this "leading applications software company."

 

[Sjouke Burry]

I think you are complaining to the wrong poster. As far as I can tell, it's
Chris Hills that wants to allow non-Standard discussions.

Sorry, but at least you understood the gist of what i meant

 

[borophyll]

No it's not. As a regular here for the last 14 years I say it is ON
topic.

For a regular, if that is true, you certainly don't know what your
talking about.

Regards,
B.

 

[karthikbalaguru]

As "spawnl" executes an exe through C code., similarly how can we
compile a C program through another C program (on Windows platform) ?

We can invoke the corresponding compiler by passing the compilation/
debug options to it.

It is nothing but invoking another application from a c application.
Here it is invoking a c compiler from an application. You can do it on
your own.

Karthik Balaguru

 

[karthikbalaguru]

You might try:

system("cc file.c");

Of course you can supply other options to cc too.

yes, this can be tried . Did you give this a try ?

Karthik Balaguru

 

[santosh]

yes, this can be tried . Did you give this a try ?

That is for the OP to do. In fact, I have made a minor mistake. It would be
better for the OP to issue the "c99 OPTIONS" command instead of "cc
OPTIONS", since the former is specified by the POSIX standard. OTOH, the cc
command is also present in practically all UNIXes.

If the platform is not UNIX-like then the OP has to see the documentation
for his system and consult an appropriate group.

 

[Chris Hills]

Nonsense. In the first place, you haven't been a regular here for 14
years.

I have... often not always vocal.

In the second place, merely cite the section in ISO 9899, any
version, that defines the spawnl function. If you can do that, it is
topical here. If you can't do that, it is not.

I don't have to cite 9899.... that is your personal restrictive view of
this NG not mine.

If you want to artificially restrict YOUR PERSONAL VIEW of this NG that
is up to you but yoyu have no right or authority to inflict it on the
rest of us.

We are getting far to much noise to signal on this NG with a small but
vocal group of net nannies screaming OT for hundreds of posts.

If the Net nannies stopped screaming OT all the time we would have most
of the noise removed and we could all get on.

 

[Chris Hills]

So, you want to flood the newsgroup with anything from windows(4
versions), 40 dialects of unix, 100 types of embedded systems, all Apple
types etc, etc... just as long as its done in c(c++) or a system call in
c(c++) ??????????????? If you win, I'l chuck out this newsgroup.
Go look at sci.astro or alt.astronomy to get a taste of "Anything goes".

I think you are complaining to the wrong poster. As far as I can tell, it's
Chris Hills that wants to allow non-Standard discussions.[/QUOTE]

I just want discussions about C. I don't want to artificially restrict
it to an arbitrary definition dreamed up by a small vocal minority.

 

[Chris Hills]

If you (and everybody else) stopped complaining about the complaints
about OT posts
the noise on this NG would go down considerably.

The OT posts are OT. SO if they stopped posting them a hell of a lot of
noise would disappear.

 

[Chris Hills]

I see, so as a member of the ISO C working group, you fail to
understand that the C standard defines the language. Anything defined
in the C standard is part of the C language, and anything not in the C
standard is not part of the language, but a non-standard extension.

However we are here to discuss "C" if you want to discuss the standard
got to comp.std.c

You never seemed to be so obtuse before.

I live in the real world where people use implementations of C for real
work. We need to discuss C as used not as theoretically defined but not
used.

If this NG said we will discuss ISO 989:1999+ TC1+TC2+TC3 then I would
say that is the C standard but they want to discuss ANY version of C
from K&C1 to all and any draft, committee draft or other unused draft
they can find but NOT C as it is used in reality.

Surely with your years of usenet experience, you are aware of the fact
that discussions about topicality are ALWAYS topical.

Fair enough then all the posts saying the OT are OT are also OT. So we
end up with a LOT of noise because a few want to artificially change
this NG from compl.lang.C to comp.lang.std.c

 

[Chris Hills]

ISO is a standard for C.
The leading applications software company in the world has chosen to
deprecate substantial portions of that standard,

One of the leading..... I assume you mean MS. They in my view have
subverted the standard process for C, C++. C#, C++/CLI Whether that is
for good or ill remains to be seen.

the latest version has not been widely implemented, and large numbers
of smaller platforms have never adhered closely to it.

This is true. If ISO release ISO 9899:200* then C99 will be the
standard that never was. There has been a suggestion of dropping parts
of C99 for the next release.

I think we are moving away from the ANSI standard phase of C's history
and into something new. What that will be is a good question.

Well that will never get discussed here because they will say it is OT.


I agree with you. Unless the ISO C group do something radical ISO C will
fade into obscurity in the same way ISO BASIC did whilst VB and many
dialects of BASIC still thrive.

MISRA-C provides a subset of what the compilers implement. It is not a
base standard in the same way ISO C is. So I don't know where things
will lead. I can't see ECMA doing a new C standard.

It was suggested (by a member of the ISO C panel) that he thought the
GCC dialect might replace the ISO definition as The Standard. SO this NG
will then die out. Note that was the GCC definition of the language
NOT the GCC compilers.

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills wrote:

[...]

However as a member of the ISO C and MISRA -C groups I have to
disagree with your artificial and incorrect view of topicality on
this NG.

As a member of the ISO C and MISRA C std groups, I would prefer if you
focus on your field of expertise.

Well apparently thin NG is ONLY for ISO C....

I don't mind, if you go OT with safety-critical considerations or
embedded viewpoints,

That is the field of MISRA-C ISO C is the (ONLY) ON TOPIC area for
this NG apparently.

but spawnl()

Is widely used in many C implementations and various options and
techniques should be discussed. In fact he did not need spawn but a
"system" type call.

Given that pure ISO C is of little real world use for the majority a
discussion that says "spawn" is not what you need and it is only
available in some areas you need something like "system" is of use to
most people.
When it then gets very system specific like how to do it in XP. VISTA,
Red hat then direct them to the specific NG.

& YATD (yet-another topicality discussion) with R.H., is a waste of
our time.

I agree I would prefer that RH and the other small group of Net nannies
stop these YATD posts.

The problem is that evil happens when good people do nothing so if you
do not challenge these OT people they will strangle this NG.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

MISRA-C provides a subset of what the compilers implement. It is
not a base standard in the same way ISO C is. So I don't know
where things will lead. I can't see ECMA doing a new C standard.

It was suggested (by a member of the ISO C panel) that he thought
the GCC dialect might replace the ISO definition as The Standard.
SO this NG will then die out. Note that was the GCC definition
of the language NOT the GCC compilers.

Actually, if you suggested including the Misra definition in the
on-topic area, rather than trying to totally subvert topicality
here, you might have been successful. Of course it would probably
require that the Misra standard be made freely available, i.e.
free.

 

[CBFalconer]

Chris Hills wrote:

[...]

However as a member of the ISO C and MISRA -C groups I have to
disagree with your artificial and incorrect view of topicality
on this NG.

As a member of the ISO C and MISRA C std groups, I would prefer
if you focus on your field of expertise.

Well apparently thin NG is ONLY for ISO C....

Ah - finally you are catching on.

 

[Chris Hills]

Actually, if you suggested including the Misra definition in the
on-topic area,

It is a sub set of C95 so should be on topic in that sense but it is NOT
a language standard in the same way ISO is or should be. .

rather than trying to totally subvert topicality
here, you might have been successful.

I don't see what you are getting at

Of course it would probably
require that the Misra standard be made freely available, i.e.
free.

Why? The ISO standards are not free. I would happily give the MISRA-C
away free if you will fund the production costs.