lcc-win is not <some compiler>

[jacob navia]

Clarification:

I declare that lcc-win is not the dubious <some compiler> mentioned in
Mr Teapot post.

Older versions (i.e. versions older than Feb 22th 2009) do display the
bug that Mr teapot mentions, and in the README there is this sentence:

Feb 22:
The declaration
long long unsigned int
wasn't parsed correctly. Thanks to Mr Tea Pot for this bug report.

These are just coincidences. The current version of lcc-win doesn't have
any problems with a declaration such as

long long unsigned int

or even the more vicious

long long signed int

 

[Tea Pot]

Clarification:

I declare that lcc-win is not the dubious <some compiler> mentioned in
Mr Teapot post.

Older versions (i.e. versions older than Feb 22th 2009) do display the
bug that Mr teapot mentions, and in the README there is this sentence:

Feb 22:
The declaration
long long unsigned int
wasn't parsed correctly. Thanks to Mr Tea Pot for this bug report.

This is very flattering, but I believe the bug was reported by Mr teapot,
not me.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Given the origin, however, it's pretty certain you're being trolled.

I wonder how much you really know about the origin.

Best advice is probably to ignore it, although I could certainly
understand why you might not be happy to do that.

Your concern is truly touching, you hypocritical sonofabitch.

 

[Richard]

jacob navia said:


At first I thought he meant gcc (but it turns out I had misread his
article) - I hadn't noticed the author's name. Given the origin,
however, it's pretty certain you're being trolled. Best advice is
probably to ignore it, although I could certainly understand why
you might not be happy to do that.

<snip>

Sweet. Heathfield is showing he doesn't really have an issue with Jacob
or his compiler. Well, thats cleared that up.

 

[teapot]

The current version of lcc-win doesn't have any problems
with a declaration such as

long long unsigned int

jacob, are you perhaps thinking of

long long int unsigned,

which indeed does the expected thing? In my tests against
the version dated Feb 18 2009 09:41:15,

long long unsigned int

produces the diagnostics as described in article

<[email protected]>

and the generated code is minimally incorrect.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> If you look at the words from teapot, can you conceive of anyone
> misreading <some_compiler> as gcc? Why would anyone write "However,
> <some_compiler>" after already mentioning "gcc"? And most damning of all,
> why would gcc in C99 mode produce two different outputs?

If you knew something about the way people read stuff you would not be
as surprised as you seem to be. In general people gloss over the
details and fill them in with their own conception. I, myself have
to many times replied to articles with my own conception of what was
written rather than what was actually written, resulting in a completely
wrong follow-up.

 

[jacob navia]

jacob, are you perhaps thinking of

long long int unsigned,

which indeed does the expected thing? In my tests against
the version dated Feb 18 2009 09:41:15,

long long unsigned int

produces the diagnostics as described in article

<[email protected]>

and the generated code is minimally incorrect.

I tested again, but I am using version compiled at 10:54 and not
9:41...

Can you please reload? Maybe there is a problemwith the version you have.

Sorry about this problems.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

If you knew something about the way people read stuff you would not be
as surprised as you seem to be. In general people gloss over the
details and fill them in with their own conception. I, myself have
to many times replied to articles with my own conception of what was
written rather than what was actually written, resulting in a completely
wrong follow-up.

Yes, absolutely. This definitely happens to me, not all the
time of course but it does happen. Fortunately, usually I
catch it in the just-before-posting-review pass; at times I
have written whole responses, only to discover on a "final"
re-reading that they need to be completely changed, or
sometimes discarded altogether, when I discover with horror
that what I thought the person was saying isn't what they
were saying at all...

 

[teapot]

I tested again, but I am using version compiled at 10:54 and not
9:41...

Can you please reload? Maybe there is a problemwith the version you have.

Sorry about this problems.

I can confirm that ``long long unsigned int'' is now parsed correctly
in this version.

 

[jacob navia]

I can confirm that ``long long unsigned int'' is now parsed correctly
in this version.

Thanks