A good compiler

R

Richard Heathfield

Chris Hills said:

Much the same with many who spam news groups with the answer Linux,
gcc
etc no mater how unsuitable it is. However I note that in clc that
is permitted whilst the odd one or two who are not of theFOSS faith
get savaged no matter what.

Chris, you're over-stating your case, and weakening it as a result.
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Chris Hills said:
Free Open Source Software apparently. No my acronym but one used by
the open source crowd

The fact that so many in here didn't know what it meant (or, in my case,
had to guess) should clue you in to the possibility that you have
mischaracterised many of the regular contributors to this group.
 
K

Keith Thompson

Chris Hills said:
Which ISO standard is that one?

N869 is a preliminary draft of C99, dated Jan 18, 1999. N1124 is a
post-C99 version, incorporating the C99 standard plus TC1 and TC2.
 
C

CBFalconer

Chris said:
I didn't say internal.

But I did. Quite deliberately.
So I can't modify/adapt etc the FOSS SW and issue it without
disclosing the source.

Why bring FOSS into it? You were talking about gcc, which is
covered by the GPL licence. GNU holds the copyright.
 
C

CBFalconer

Chris said:
Which ISO standard is that one?

N869 is the last draft of the 1999 standard. N1124 is a draft of
revisions proposed to the 1999 standard. Both have the complete
standard content. I suspect you know this already.
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Keith Thompson said:
N869 is a preliminary draft of C99, dated Jan 18, 1999. N1124 is a
post-C99 version, incorporating the C99 standard plus TC1 and TC2.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, Chris Hills is (or was) on the British
contingent of the ISO C Committee, in which case I suspect that his
question was rhetorical.
 
C

Chris Hills

Keith Thompson said:
N869 is a preliminary draft of C99,

Precisely... It is a DRAFT not a standard of any sort and quoting from
it is meaningless.
dated Jan 18, 1999. N1124 is a
post-C99 version, incorporating the C99 standard plus TC1 and TC2.

Again a committee DRAFT not a standard of any sort and quoting from it
is meaningless.
 
C

Charlton Wilbur

KB> One can try to make a language "safe", remove all the
KB> potentially risky constructs, check and validate everything,
KB> hand-hold at every possible opportunity and so forth, but what
KB> is the result of this?

Java.

KB> I tend to think it's going to be a lot of even *worse* code,
KB> written by people who rely on the compiler or language to spot
KB> the flaws rather than applying good practices, while the
KB> actual good programmers get stuck with tools that, once
KB> useful, are now crippled to the point of uselessness.

And this is exactly what has happened in the Java world.

I know a brilliant programmer who has spent the last decade working in
Java because it was the easiest way he could get into building big
systems. He's of the belief that Java is a fine language, and that
most of its reputation comes from the legion of minimally-competent
Java programmers: because of Java's resilience and handholding, the
level of programmer proficiency and code quality that would result in
an uncompilable and frequently crashing program in C or C++ instead
results in a program that compiles and runs, but runs dog-slow and
produces the wrong result.

Meanwhile, many competent programmers are avoiding Java completely
because the tools and the processes hamstring them, and they'll have
to work for or with or clean up after the aforementioned
minimally-competent Java programmers. That's certainly the reason
that I've avoided Java.

Charlton
 
K

Kelsey Bjarnason

[snips]

True, but the greatest problem is that the educated chimps are not going
to be using strcpy_s() in the first place. strcpy_s() will be used by
people with a bee in their bonnet about security-by-magic; the educated
chimps will keep using strcpy() on uninitialised pointers; intelligent
programmers will continue to use strcpy() safely. Thus, this entire
_s-debacle will be yet another useless bag on the side of C.

So yet another kiss-a-toad-and-get-a-wart that buys bugger all for anyone
with a clue, while doing nothing for those without. Yes, definitely,
let's all get behind this one.

Blech.
 
K

Keith Thompson

Chris Hills said:
Precisely... It is a DRAFT not a standard of any sort and quoting
from it is meaningless.


Again a committee DRAFT not a standard of any sort and quoting from it
is meaningless.

Then perhaps you could have said that.

I frequently quote from n1124.pdf. All changes are clearly marked
with change bars (I also have a copy of the actual C99 standard).
Furthermore, my understanding is that TC1 and TC2 are official
modifications to the standard, so N1124 is more accurate than the
original C99 standard (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

Did the definition of strcpy() change between n869, C99, and n1124?
 
C

Chris Hills

Keith Thompson said:
Then perhaps you could have said that.

I frequently quote from n1124.pdf. All changes are clearly marked
with change bars (I also have a copy of the actual C99 standard).
Furthermore, my understanding is that TC1 and TC2 are official
modifications to the standard, so N1124 is more accurate than the
original C99 standard (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

You are mistaken.
The published C99 (+ published TC1 and TC2 ) is the standard (for what
good it does :-( .

N1124 is a document it has no standing whatsoever until it is published.
Then it becomes a different document. The problem is that changes can
and do happen right up to the point of it hitting the presses. Some may
only be typos but they can be critical I have seen a document "issued"
and then pulled again before actually being published so some
corrections can be made.

Quoting from the N docs because you don't want to spend the money on an
official document is no excuse (I know you have official docs, Keith so
that comment wasn't aimed at you)

My complaint was some one pedantically discussing the standard refereed
to an N* document and asked for some one to give paragraph numbers....
You should only be quoting the official standards

If you want to quote the standard you have
K&R1
K&R2
ANSI C89
ISO C90
ISO C90 A1
ISO C90 TC1
ISO C90 TC2
ISO C99
ISO C99 TC1
ISO C99 TC2

The N documents are not the standard.
 
J

jacob navia

Chris said:
Quoting from the N docs because you don't want to spend the money on an
official document is no excuse

Some people just do not understand that not everything is free
and open source. The standards are sold for a small amount of
money, they are just not free.
 
H

Harald van =?UTF-8?B?RMSzaw==?=

Chris said:
Quoting from the N docs because you don't want to spend the money on an
official document is no excuse (I know you have official docs, Keith so
that comment wasn't aimed at you)

Well, I'm quoting from the drafts because even though I would be quite happy
to purchase a copy of the standard for the price ANSI charges for it, I am
not able to do so: payment by credit card is simply not an option for me
(that's assuming ANSI doesn't sell only to folks from the US; I'm not sure
about that), and all other methods I am aware of would cost me over 100
Euros extra. If you can tell me how I can obtain the official standard for
a reasonable price (which may be higher than ANSI's, but more than four
times as high is ridiculous), please let me know, I would be very
interested. If you cannot tell me how to obtain the official standard for a
reasonable price, I will continue to rely on the drafts. How you feel about
that is up to you; I don't and won't feel bad about it.
 
J

jacob navia

Harald said:
Well, I'm quoting from the drafts because even though I would be quite happy
to purchase a copy of the standard for the price ANSI charges for it, I am
not able to do so: payment by credit card is simply not an option for me
(that's assuming ANSI doesn't sell only to folks from the US; I'm not sure
about that), and all other methods I am aware of would cost me over 100
Euros extra. If you can tell me how I can obtain the official standard for
a reasonable price (which may be higher than ANSI's, but more than four
times as high is ridiculous), please let me know, I would be very
interested. If you cannot tell me how to obtain the official standard for a
reasonable price, I will continue to rely on the drafts. How you feel about
that is up to you; I don't and won't feel bad about it.

"The C Standard" Incorporating Technical Corrigendum No 1"
Wiley and Sons Ltd.
ISBN 0-470-84573-2

This is a very good book. I do not remember the exact price
http://www.quantumbooks.com/c/03PROGC lists it for 72 dollars
This one lists for 52 euros
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-WILEYEUROPE2_SEARCH_RESULT.html?query=The C Standard
Amazon lists it for 54.45 dollars
http://www.amazon.com/C-Standard-Incorporating-Technical-Corrigendum/dp/0470845732
 
H

Harald van =?UTF-8?B?RMSzaw==?=

jacob said:
"The C Standard" Incorporating Technical Corrigendum No 1"
Wiley and Sons Ltd.
ISBN 0-470-84573-2

This is a very good book. I do not remember the exact price
http://www.quantumbooks.com/c/03PROGC lists it for 72 dollars
This one lists for 52 euros
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-WILEYEUROPE2_SEARCH_RESULT.html?query=The C Standard
Amazon lists it for 54.45 dollars
http://www.amazon.com/C-Standard-Incorporating-Technical-Corrigendum/dp/0470845732

Thank you very much. That to me is a fair price, and it appears to be
available without problems even locally.
 
C

Chris Hills

Harald van said:
Well, I'm quoting from the drafts because even though I would be quite happy
to purchase a copy of the standard for the price ANSI charges for it,
I am
not able to do so: payment by credit card is simply not an option for me

That changes nothing
(that's assuming ANSI doesn't sell only to folks from the US;

Then don't buy the American version of the International standard
I'm not sure
about that), and all other methods I am aware of would cost me over 100
Euros extra. If you can tell me how I can obtain the official standard for
a reasonable price (which may be higher than ANSI's, but more than four
times as high is ridiculous), please let me know, I would be very
interested.

Buy the John Wiley book ISBN 047084573 2

.. 30 GBP or about 40 Euro
 
C

Chris Hills

jacob navia said:
"The C Standard" Incorporating Technical Corrigendum No 1"
Wiley and Sons Ltd.
ISBN 0-470-84573-2

This is a very good book. I do not remember the exact price
http://www.quantumbooks.com/c/03PROGC lists it for 72 dollars
This one lists for 52 euros
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-WILEYEUROPE2_SEARCH_RESULT.html?
query=The%20C%20Standard
Amazon lists it for 54.45 dollars
http://www.amazon.com/C-Standard-Incorporating-Technical-Corrigendum/dp/
0470845732

It's about 30 GBP. The value of the USD has dropped a lot of late
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,743
Messages
2,569,478
Members
44,898
Latest member
BlairH7607

Latest Threads

Top