string splitting plzzzzzz help me...

[Nick Keighley]

to be fair the implementor of lcc-win32 modified this policy
(if indeed it ever was his policy). He has stated that he was being
sarcastic when he claimed he wouldn't fix anything reported by
a clc regular. Sarcasm is always a tricky thing on usenet
and the implementor of lcc-win32 seems to be particularly
bad at it.

I believe the policy of the implementor of lcc-win32
is that he will fix bugs reported by whomever. But he will
not undertake major development except in support of a paying
customer. This seems fair enough.

Of course there may be disagreements on what a "bug" actually
is...

I believe what triggered the sarcasm was a complaint
that lcc-win32 didn't run an a particularly ancient
version of Windows. Fair enough if its clear that old
platforms aren't supported.

 

[lawrence.jones]

I believe the policy of the implementor of lcc-win32
is that he will fix bugs reported by whomever.

But only after ridiculing the reporter, displaying his ignorance of (the
finer points of?) the C Standard, and ranting and raving in his
charmingly paranoid fashion about how certain people here are always
picking on him and his compiler. At least for bugs that are reported
here.

I give him credit for eventually fixing the bugs, but it would be
refreshing to see a response of, "Yes, you're right. I'll fix it.",
without having to go through the usual flame fest first.

-- Larry Jones

In a minute, you and I are going to settle this out of doors. -- Calvin

 

[Flash Gordon]

teapot wrote, On 06/05/08 14:47:

I keep reading that some problems may be corrected in newer versions,
but for some time now (at least since early 2008) I am unable to
download anything lcc-win32 related.

<snip problems trying to download lcc-win32>

I suggest emailing Jacob directly or asking on comp.compilers.lcc in
case he does not see your question here. I've cross-posted and set
follow-ups for you.

 

[jacob navia]

But only after ridiculing the reporter, displaying his ignorance of (the
finer points of?) the C Standard, and ranting and raving in his
charmingly paranoid fashion about how certain people here are always
picking on him and his compiler. At least for bugs that are reported
here.

Not only that, there are things I will not even fix at all.
For instance, the undocumented "-ansic89" option...

 

[Keith Thompson]

Not only that, there are things I will not even fix at all.
For instance, the undocumented "-ansic89" option...

For the record, jacob, am I correct in assuming that lcc-win does
*not* have, and is not intended to have, a mode in which it fully
conforms to the (officially obsolete) ANSI C89 / ISO C90 standard(s)?

 

[jacob navia]

For the record, jacob, am I correct in assuming that lcc-win does
*not* have, and is not intended to have, a mode in which it fully
conforms to the (officially obsolete) ANSI C89 / ISO C90 standard(s)?

I have NO idea where Mr Teapot got to know that option. It is not in the
documentation!

Somehow he has access to some source code. I searched all the available
documents and there is NO MENTION of that option.

But maybe I forgot something. In any case it is obvious that I will not
support that. Somehow, after all the C99 implementation effort it is
impossible to consider trying to eliminate // comments from the
compiler.

Besides I do not feel like wasting my time on it. Of course, if Mr
Teapot has money to burn, I would do it in a specially prepared
lcc-win version...

 

[Keith Thompson]

I have NO idea where Mr Teapot got to know that option. It is not in the
documentation!

Somehow he has access to some source code. I searched all the available
documents and there is NO MENTION of that option.

But maybe I forgot something. In any case it is obvious that I will not
support that. Somehow, after all the C99 implementation effort it is
impossible to consider trying to eliminate // comments from the
compiler.

Besides I do not feel like wasting my time on it. Of course, if Mr
Teapot has money to burn, I would do it in a specially prepared
lcc-win version...

I was looking for a simple yes or no answer, not a rant. Sheesh!

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

I have NO idea where Mr Teapot got to know that option. It is not in the
documentation!

Somehow he has access to some source code.

That is a leap too far. 'strings lcc.exe| grep ansi' outputs -ansi89
and -ansic. I do it all the time if I can't remember the spelling of
an option and there is no convenient 'man lcc' command. -ansic is
different enough from what I'd expect that I might have done this
myself (although, in fact, I had not until today).

 

[Antoninus Twink]

I have NO idea where Mr Teapot got to know that option. It is not in the
documentation!

Somehow he has access to some source code. I searched all the available
documents and there is NO MENTION of that option.

$ strings ~/.wine/drive_c/lcc/bin/lcc.exe | grep -- ^- | grep '[:alpha:]' | sort -u
-8lH
-alignfn
-ansi89
-ansic
-boundscheck
-check
-coverage
-export:%s
-finline
-fno-inline
-hDl]
-libcdll
-library:%s
-noregistrylookup
-overflowcheck
-pedantic
-profile
-shadows
-stackinit
-trapuv


Are there any other undocumented options in that list?

 

[Flash Gordon]

CBFalconer wrote, On 07/05/08 16:55:

And where can you find a compiler that meets all those specs?

Richard was not suggesting that it should meet all of them, only that it
should (modulo bugs) meet at least one.

Without a generally apporoved public domain test suite it is
impossible to even test for such. Well, impracticable at least.
What we CAN do is find particular bugs and failings, and report
those.

As yet lcc-win32 does not claim to fully implement *any* version of the
C standard since Jacob acknowledges he has not yet finished implementing
C99 and he does not make any claim about supporting earlier standards.

If you look at any of gcc, MSVC++, Borland C++, icc and a whole host of
others you will find that they claim to implement at least one version
of the standard (when appropriately poked) and modulo bugs (as opposed
to things not implemented) this is what they do.

So the position with lcc-win32 *is* different, and will remain so until
Jacob believes that he has finished implementing C99.

Of course, there are also compilers for embedded systems that do not
fully implement any version of the C standard, so Jacob is not entirely
unique in this respect.