problem with macros

[Harald van Dijk]

That is of course total and utter nonsense.

The C standard does not define a function called
ChuckIsASelfImportantBlowhard() either but that doesn't mean I can't
write one in standard C.

Sure, it would be similar to
int f(void) { return 0; }
which of course can be included in and called from strictly conforming
programs. Now, can you write functions for anything jacob navia mentioned
in standard C, other than "nothing"?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Twink you know nothing about Navia. Like you he wants to ruin this group.
He could care less about C, only his lccwin32. This IS NOT C. He refuses
to conform to the ISO Standard. He attacks people who report
conformance bugs. He is a paranoid liar. Navia has caused division in this
group. Navia is a disgrace to C programming.

Regards,
Coffee Pot

Let's see now. Whose sock puppet do ya suppose Mr. Pot is?
Who among the regs has really gone to pot this time?

My money is on my hero Keith, but other possibilities exist.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Twink you know nothing about Navia. Like you he wants to ruin this group.

I don't think this is true. I think Jacob Navia cares a lot about C.
But many people disagree with his opinions about the direction C
should go in the future. They also disagree about the suitable topics
that should be discussed on clc. I don't think Jacob has any *intent*
to damage or destroy clc.

He could care less about C, only his lccwin32.

untrue, I believe. But then we are trying to mind read.

This IS NOT C. He refuses to conform to the ISO Standard.

well he claims to be trying to conform to C99. he just
doesn't think "a few extra bits in the standard headers"
is really important. he's wrong but then many other
implementations have trodden this road.

He attacks people who report conformance bugs.
true

He is a paranoid liar.

probably paranoid, probably over-excitable, often mistaken

Navia has caused division in this group.

it takes 2 to tango

Navia is a disgrace to C programming.

bollocks

 

[santosh]

Coffee Pot wrote:

[what one would expect from a neophyte troll]

bollocks

And IMO, that should've been your only response, if you had to respond
at all.

 

[CBFalconer]

Coffee Pot wrote:

[what one would expect from a neophyte troll]

bollocks

And IMO, that should've been your only response, if you had to
respond at all.

When you respond, you should mark the areas where you snip
material. I consider the unmarked snippage from Mr. Keighleys
response to be very reasonable.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Twink you know nothing about Navia. Like you he wants to ruin this group.
He could care less about C, only his lccwin32. This IS NOT C. He refuses
to conform to the ISO Standard. He attacks people who report
conformance bugs. He is a paranoid liar. Navia has caused division in this
group. Navia is a disgrace to C programming.

OK, Heathfield, whatever you say.

 

[lawrence.jones]

For a structure all of whose members are of the same type, a compiler
is *allowed* to insert padding between the members, but I can think of
no good reason for it to do so (though it may well have a reason to
insert padding at the end).

Stricter than required alignment may allow more efficient access. I know
of at least one compiler that aligns all structure members to at least a
4 byte boundary.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Stricter than required alignment may allow more efficient access. I know
of at least one compiler that aligns all structure members to at least a
4 byte boundary.

Even for members smaller than 4 bytes?

Of course it can't do the same thing for array elements, so this:
struct { char c0, c1, c2, c3; };
would have a different representation than char[4].

 

[lawrence.jones]

Even for members smaller than 4 bytes?

Yes, *particularly* members smaller than 4 bytes. (Larger members are
usually aligned to larger boundary.) It also aligns regular variables
the same way.

Of course it can't do the same thing for array elements, so this:
struct { char c0, c1, c2, c3; };
would have a different representation than char[4].

Exactly.