Serious conformance BUG in lcc-win32 still present

[jameskuyper]

Tea Pot wrote:
....

Don't you care about support for Standard C from compiler vendors?

Does the existence of Fortran compilers that don't conform to the C
standard bother you? If not, why does it bother you that lcc-win
doesn't conform? It's a different language, with a strong and
misleading family resemblance to C, but why does that matter?

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

It may seem like a trivial point, but is indicative of the attitude of the
vendor who seems not to care about standards, conformance and portability.
Fixing this glaring BUG would be a sign to everyone that lcc-win32 seeks
to be standards compliant.

The current C language has // comments. Supporting these comments conforms to
the current standard.

The following code is no longer a multiplicative expression in the current
dialect:

a//*divide*/b

There are no known fully conforming implementations of the current standard.

If you were genuine, you could pick on /serious/ nonconformities in any major
implementation.

The author of the feature made it clear that -ansi89 option was developed as an
internal interface for a specific customer, where specific requirements were
involved, not full ANSI C 89 or ISO C 90. compliance.

By using this feature, you're sticking a fork into a toaster; you are not a
party to the private agreement between the author and that customer, and so you
do not know what is in it. When you use this option, you don't know what kind
of implementation you are getting, and so you don't know what your program must
be in order to conform.

The feature has a bug only if it violates the requirements in that agreement,
whose contents you don't know.

Since you're too stupid to tell what circumstances constitute a bug, there is
no need to take you seriously.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Don't you care about support for Standard C from compiler vendors?

I certainly do. I don't particularly care about whether a specific
compiler conforms to a standard *to which it does not claim
conformance*.

lcc-win32 attempts to conform to C99. (Last I heard, it was still
missing a few features, but that's beside the point.) The "-ansi89"
switch, as you have been told repeatedly, is not even documented; why
should anyone care what it does?

It might be nice if lcc-win32 had a mode in which it fully conforms to
the older C90 standard, but jacob is under no moral, ethical, or
contractual obligation to implement such a mode.

I haven't written a C compiler at all. Why not complain that my
non-existent implementation doesn't conform to C90?

I've found bugs in gcc. I don't report them here because that's not
the way to get them fixed.

[...]

It may seem like a trivial point, but is indicative of the attitude of the
vendor who seems not to care about standards, conformance and portability.
Fixing this glaring BUG would be a sign to everyone that lcc-win32 seeks
to be standards compliant.

lcc-win32's failure to fully conform to C90 is not a bug, any more
than its failure to be a C++ compiler or a dessert topping is a bug.

But if you want to complain about it, talk to jacob. If you pay him
enough money, he might be willing to implement the features you want.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Tea Pot wrote:
...

No, he has pride in producing a non-conforming compiler, because he
considers the way in which it fails to conform to constitute an
improvement over the behavior of a fully-conforming compiler.

[...]

Actually, if I recall correctly, lcc-win32 has an option that causes
it to attempt to conform to C99. It does implement a non-conforming
dialect by default (i.e., it provides extensions that break strictly
conforming C99 programs), but then so do most C compilers.

 

[Bartc]

lcc-win32's failure to fully conform to C90 is not a bug, any more
than its failure to be a C++ compiler or a dessert topping is a bug.

But if you want to complain about it, talk to jacob. If you pay him
enough money, he might be willing to implement the features you want.

I doubt whether anyone would want the OP as a customer no matter how much
money he paid. The work would never stop.

 

[gw7rib]

write a tool that detects // comments and add it to their
toolchain. Good grief.

I was speculating as to a situation in which the defect could cause
harm. It seemed a plausible scenario, more plausible than the bits of
code with comments in the middle of divisons.

Of course, if you *know* the problem is there, it's easy to fix. My
hypothetical users were bitten because they weren't aware of the
defect.

Of course, various factual details that have come out in the thread
mean that my original speculation was starting from a misleading
basis.

 

[Harald van Dijk]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:36:15 +0100, jacob navia wrote: [...]
I think your attitude is very bad. You should act on BUG reports
received from ordinary users as well as registered users.

I know this proves nothing, but when I ran into an actual bug (unlike
what you're complaining about) in lcc-win32, jacob fixed it and his
response was a positive one. I am not a registered user.

 

[Tea Pot]

I certainly do. I don't particularly care about whether a specific
compiler conforms to a standard *to which it does not claim
conformance*.

lcc-win32 attempts to conform to C99. (Last I heard, it was still
missing a few features, but that's beside the point.) The "-ansi89"
switch, as you have been told repeatedly, is not even documented; why
should anyone care what it does?

It might be nice if lcc-win32 had a mode in which it fully conforms to
the older C90 standard, but jacob is under no moral, ethical, or
contractual obligation to implement such a mode.

Right, and people are under no moral, ethical, or contractual obligation
to regard his compiler (a compiler for a language that isn't C!) as an
option for their use.

If a compiler vendor is not prepared to fix his product to conform on this
very simple point, how can anyone expect that vendor to be willing to
ensure his product conforms to the tricky, intricate points of the
Standard?

Refusing to fix a simple BUG gives the impression of a slipshod vendor who
is happy to ship crap. There isn't even any need to reject // comments:
all that is needed for Standards compliance is to emit a diagnostic. But
even that trivial change is too much for this arrogant vendor with no
interest in Standards compliance.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

I doubt whether anyone would want the OP as a customer no matter how much
money he paid. The work would never stop.

Really? No matter how much money he paid? What is the objective, for work to
eventually end? Or for the money to keep coming?

 

[Bartc]

Really? No matter how much money he paid? What is the objective, for work
to
eventually end? Or for the money to keep coming?

Consider this:

Refusing to fix a simple BUG gives the impression of a slipshod vendor who
is happy to ship crap. There isn't even any need to reject // comments:
all that is needed for Standards compliance is to emit a diagnostic. But
even that trivial change is too much for this arrogant vendor with no
interest in Standards compliance.

Does he sound like someone who is ever going to pay you? Or just a
troublemaker (that is, if Tea Pot was for real).

 

[Keith Thompson]

Right, and people are under no moral, ethical, or contractual obligation
to regard his compiler (a compiler for a language that isn't C!) as an
option for their use.

Absolutely. So feel free not to use it.

If a compiler vendor is not prepared to fix his product to conform on this
very simple point, how can anyone expect that vendor to be willing to
ensure his product conforms to the tricky, intricate points of the
Standard?

Which standard?

Refusing to fix a simple BUG gives the impression of a slipshod vendor who
is happy to ship crap. There isn't even any need to reject // comments:
all that is needed for Standards compliance is to emit a diagnostic. But
even that trivial change is too much for this arrogant vendor with no
interest in Standards compliance.

Putting the word BUG in all-caps doesn't make it any more applicable.

Several people have tried to explain to you that lcc-win32's failure
to conform to C90, using an undocumented switch, when the maintainer
has never claimed that it conforms to C90 (an officially obsolete
standard) is not a BUG, or even a bug. If you're too dense to
understand that, there's not much we can do about it.

I encourage you to stop whining about it.

I strongly encourage you to stop whining about it here.

 

[jameskuyper]

No, he has pride in producing a non-conforming compiler, because he
considers the way in which it fails to conform to constitute an
improvement over the behavior of a fully-conforming compiler.

[...]

Actually, if I recall correctly, lcc-win32 has an option that causes
it to attempt to conform to C99. It does implement a non-conforming
dialect by default (i.e., it provides extensions that break strictly
conforming C99 programs), but then so do most C compilers.

As I remember it, lcc-win32 fails to diagnose use of some extensions
that would be perfectly legal in in a conforming implementation, but
only if their use were diagnosed. He approves of those extensions, and
therefore sees no justification in diagnosing their use.

 

[Richard]

Which is a lie, of course. As one of the "trolls", I always give
posters the best help I can give them if what they're asking about has
to do with ISO C. That I have an expanded view of topicality doesn't
stop me from sticking to ISO C when it's called for.

The usual insult is that the group has been taken over by trolls
who want to disrupt the newsgroup and violate topicality. By that
account, you do realize that you fit nicely into that category,
don't you?

I've decided that you're not Heathfield (unless he's pulling some
funny shit in this thread, which I wouldn't put past him), and you
don't sound like Falconer, who doesn't seem to have a problem with
Jacob anyway. It's strange that Richard and I both thought of
Flash Gordon as a candidate, but I'm not sure even Flash Gordon
is this much of a weasel.

Yes he is that much of a weasel.

That post he crafted subtly warning the other poster that modules will
have to be paid for in Jacob's compiler was extremely sly and
underhand. Also at the same time as the other poster today, "Flash"
reappeared at near enough the same time.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

If a compiler vendor is not prepared to fix his product to conform
on this very simple point, how can anyone expect that vendor to be
willing to ensure his product conforms to the tricky, intricate
points of the Standard?

It has been pointed out here (and I initially missed it) that
lcc-win32 does NOT claim to implement C90. So, if you insist on
complaining, complain about failure to implement C99 features.
However, do the complaining on comp.compilers.lcc, since that is a
specific compiler instance, and thus off-topic on c.l.c. However,
warning possible users of its faults here will probably not cause
objections.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Flash Gordon no doubt. Or CBF ....

Unlikely to be me when I've previously stated that it is up to Jacob
what priority he puts on things. Also I don't use other identities.

I think that Jacob's response to Teapot's trolling was entirely correct.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Yes he is that much of a weasel.

No, I never post with other names.

That post he crafted subtly warning the other poster that modules will
have to be paid for in Jacob's compiler was extremely sly and
underhand.

Jacob is entirely within his rights to charge for his work, nothing
wrong with that.

Also at the same time as the other poster today, "Flash"
reappeared at near enough the same time.

Coincidences happen.

 

[Keith Thompson]

If it claims to conform, and doesn't, that bothers me. If it doesn't
claim conformance, I don't care whether it does conform or not. As
I recall from some conversations in this newsgroup, the author
claims conformance.

As I recall, the author claims either conformance or near conformance
to C99, but has never claimed conformance to C90.

(I've restored the attribution line for the quotation from James
Kuyper. Permission to quote this article without proper attribution
is expressly denied. Gordon, don't you get tired of this nonsense?)

 

[Kenny McCormack]

If it claims to conform, and doesn't, that bothers me. If it doesn't
claim conformance, I don't care whether it does conform or not. As
I recall from some conversations in this newsgroup, the author
claims conformance.

The reality is that Jacob has claimed, quite reasonably and quite
rightly, that it is close enough. Not good enough for CLC twits, of
course, but then again, nothing ever is.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Given the recent flood of article forgeries, leaving article
attributions in place virtually guarantees attributing something
to someone who didn't post it and violently disagrees with it.
Also, I'd expect many of them to be mad as hell if I claimed they
did post it.

The vast majority of articles here are not forgeries, and the majority
of forgeries are obvious. It just isn't that much of a problem.

A number of the forgeries in question were in my name, and several
people posted followups (with attributed quotations) assuming that I
had written them. I certainly was not mad at hell at anyone other
than the forger; I just calmly pointed out that the words weren't
mine.

And you're too stubborn to change your mind.

 

[Guest]

Tea Pot said:

I sure he shed buckets when he heard that

That's not a vicious circle. It's merely a vicious impasse. You
won't buy product X unless it does Y. Product X doesn't do Y, and
supplier won't change it to do Y. Therefore, you won't buy the
product. End of story.

my favourite version of this:

The inhabitants of a small town requested the railway company to
add their village station to ones stopped at by the morning train
that passed through on the way the London.

The railway company replied that there was no demand for such
a service and they knew this because *no one was waiting for
the morning train at that station*