Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

[Ioannis Vranos]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

"Dan Pop" <Dan.Pop@cern.c h> wrote in message
news:c5jrkj$c14 $2@sunnews.cern .ch...[color=blue]
>
> C99 is far from being an industry standard and it is not yet clear whether
> it will ever become one. Yet, it does exist and it does influence other
> standards (the last Unix specification is based on it) and the C++
> standardisation process seems to be moving toward adopting its new
> features. Whether you (or I) like it or not.[/color]


Yes i agree. Well, one thing is for sure. Whatever happens, we will keep
coding. :-)






Regards,

Ioannis Vranos

[jacob navia]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

lcc-win32 implements most of C99.

There are people here, like you, that are against my work,
for whatever reasons. You are entitled to your
opinions of course.

I am not as orthodox as you would like,
and I dare to believe that C is not a dead
language and can be improved.

No institution has supported lcc-win32. It is
a user supported project. There is no GNU,
nor Stallman, nor Microsoft.

Each time I say something in this forum, people like
you, or Mr "Irrwahn Grausewitz" or Mr Falconer
will inevitably say something against my work.

Not even a simple sentence like
"lcc-win32 supports long long" will go unnoticed.

Go ahead. I do not fear discussions. lcc-win32 has
a download rate of approx 5000/month. There are
thousands of users that are using the software I built.

True, there are bugs, and problems. I try to solve them
as they arise.

jacob

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Ioannis Vranos]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

"jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.re mcomp.fr> wrote in message
news:c5kgf2$ktc $1@news-reader1.wanadoo .fr...[color=blue]
>
> There are people here, like you, that are against my work,
> for whatever reasons. You are entitled to your
> opinions of course.
>
> I am not as orthodox as you would like,
> and I dare to believe that C is not a dead
> language and can be improved.
>
> No institution has supported lcc-win32. It is
> a user supported project. There is no GNU,
> nor Stallman, nor Microsoft.
>
> Each time I say something in this forum, people like
> you, or Mr "Irrwahn Grausewitz" or Mr Falconer
> will inevitably say something against my work.
>
> Not even a simple sentence like
> "lcc-win32 supports long long" will go unnoticed.
>
> Go ahead. I do not fear discussions. lcc-win32 has
> a download rate of approx 5000/month. There are
> thousands of users that are using the software I built.
>
> True, there are bugs, and problems. I try to solve them
> as they arise.[/color]



You are probably refering to clc (this thread is cross posted to clc++ too).

I was using lcc-win32 at the time i was learning C90 along with some other
commercial compiler and it was a really nice piece of work (i think i had
even sent you an email back then asking you about upcoming C99 support).

Well, some in clc are tough people, i don't know why. clc is the harshest
newsgroup i have ever met, they tend to answer angrily. I hear some coming,
i gotta go.






Ioannis Vranos

[Martin Ambuhl]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

jacob navia wrote:
[color=blue]
> lcc-win32 implements most of C99.
>
> There are people here, like you, that are against my work,
> for whatever reasons.[/color]

I haven't noticed that. There are many of us who appreciate your work
and even use your product. What we are against is your gratuitous
flogging your compiler here, presenting its non-standard features as
somehow relevant to this newsgroup.
[color=blue]
> You are entitled to your
> opinions of course.
>
> I am not as orthodox as you would like,
> and I dare to believe that C is not a dead
> language and can be improved.[/color]

Post your suggestions to comp.std.c, where discussions of changing the
standard belong.

[CBFalconer]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

jacob navia wrote:[color=blue]
>
> lcc-win32 implements most of C99.
>
> There are people here, like you, that are against my work,
> for whatever reasons. You are entitled to your
> opinions of course.
>[/color]
.... snip ...[color=blue]
>
> Each time I say something in this forum, people like
> you, or Mr "Irrwahn Grausewitz" or Mr Falconer
> will inevitably say something against my work.
>
> Not even a simple sentence like
> "lcc-win32 supports long long" will go unnoticed.[/color]

No, you misunderstand. We criticize things that fail the
standard. You can add extensions as you wish without hurting
anybodies feelings, but they need to be capable of disarming and
the remainder should implement the full standard. All of C99
would be nice, but all of C90 should be a minimum objective.
Extensions should be clearly identified as such. Areas of failure
to implement the standards should also be clearly indicated.

We also try to limit discussion here to things that are specified
via the standards.

--
Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses. - James Rhodes.

[Friedrich Dominicus]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

Dan.Pop@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
[color=blue]
> In <c5gs1j$cr9$1@n ews-reader2.wanadoo .fr> "jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.re mcomp.fr> writes:
>[color=green]
>>lcc-win32 supports long long.[/color]
>
> Unfortunately, it does it at the expense of not being conforming to any
> C standard. long long is a syntax error in C89 and lcc-win32 is NOT a
> conforming C99 implementation, either. So, I have yet to figure out
> what -ansic means to the lc and lcc commands.
>
> Then again, this is only one droplet in the ocean of lcc-win32 conformance
> problems...[/color]
Are you a bit paranoid? Just name one conforming C99 implementation
and then you can flame around as you like. Of course there is a
migration path from C89 to C99 if you can't see that, well that's you
problem

Friedrich

[Dan Pop]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

In <c5kgf2$ktc$1@n ews-reader1.wanadoo .fr> "jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.re mcomp.fr> writes:
[color=blue]
>lcc-win32 implements most of C99.
>
>There are people here, like you, that are against my work,
>for whatever reasons.[/color]

You'd better try to figure out those reasons.
[color=blue]
>You are entitled to your opinions of course.[/color]

Unfortunately, this is not a matter of opinion. Here are a few hard facts
about your implementation:

1. Inconsistent documentation. MANUAL.DOC says that -ANSI is the
right option for putting the compiler in conforming mode. The online
help says that you need -ansic for this purpose. Only the latter
is actually recognised by the compiler, but the result is not a
conforming compiler.

2. I couldn't find the implementation' s document of conformance (maybe
I didn't try hard enough).

An implementation shall be accompanied by a document that defines
^^^^^^^^
all implementation-defined and locale-specific characteristics
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
and all extensions.

3. Dirty headers. Non-standard functions are declared even when the
compiler is invoked with the extensions disabled, breaking correct
C programs. See the example below.

4. Bogus/idiotic warnings when all warnings are enabled. See the example
below.

5. Badly needed warnings not produced even when all warnings are enabled:

T:\lcc>type test.c
#include <stdio.h>

int fileno;

int main()
{
printf("hello world %d\n", "bar");
}

T:\lcc>lcc -ansic -A test.c
Error test.c: 3 redeclaration of 'fileno' previously declared at h:\lcc\include
\stdio.h 149
Warning test.c: 6 old-style function definition for 'main'
Warning test.c: 6 missing prototype for 'main'
Warning test.c: 6 'int main()' is a non-ANSI definition
1 errors, 3 warnings

Let's look at each diagnostic:

Error test.c: 3 redeclaration of 'fileno' previously declared at h:\lcc\include\ stdio.h 149

stdio.h has no business to declare an identifier "fileno" when the
compiler is invoked in conforming mode. Chapter and verse available.

Warning test.c: 6 old-style function definition for 'main'

This one is OK. Except for the fact that the line number is wrong: main
id defined on line 5.

Warning test.c: 6 missing prototype for 'main'

I can't see any call to main() in my program, so why should I provide
a prototype for it? And I've been already chastised for using an
old-style definition for it, right?

Warning test.c: 6 'int main()' is a non-ANSI definition

That's BULLSHIT, Jacob. 'int main()' *is* an ANSI definition. It's even
a C99-conforming definition for the main function. If you don't
believe me, ask in comp.std.c.

Now, for the missing warnings:

1. The printf call is obviously wrong, yet the compiler has no objection.

2. main() is defined as returning int, but it doesn't return anything at
all. Methinks a warning is badly needed.

Imagine that YOU were discovering all these things when evaluating someone
else's work. What would you think?

For reference, this what I get from gcc, when invoked in conforming mode
and with additional warnings enabled:

fangorn:/tmp/lcc 387> gcc -ansi -pedantic -Wall test.c
test.c: In function `main':
test.c:7: warning: int format, pointer arg (arg 2)
test.c:8: warning: control reaches end of non-void function

No bullshit and only the really objectionable "features" of my program
are reported. Do you understand now why your compiler looks like a bad
joke in the eyes of a competent professional, who expects high quality
tools and not toys, even when they are free?
[color=blue]
>I am not as orthodox as you would like,
>and I dare to believe that C is not a dead
>language and can be improved.[/color]

Improve it all you want, as long as you don't break the compiler in
conforming mode.
[color=blue]
>No institution has supported lcc-win32. It is
>a user supported project. There is no GNU,
>nor Stallman, nor Microsoft.[/color]

This is a lame excuse for not doing the right thing. It doesn't take more
effort to get things right, you just have to think more seriously about
what you're doing. I refuse to believe that fixing all the issues I've
mentioned above takes herculean efforts.
[color=blue]
>Not even a simple sentence like
>"lcc-win32 supports long long" will go unnoticed.[/color]

You have a very strange attitude toward bug reports. Yes, it was meant
as a bug report, because it is not done the right way: -ansic should put
the compiler in the only conforming mode it can current support (C89)
and the C99 support should be available *only* when the compiler is
invoked with extensions enabled. You can also add an additional switch,
say -c99, that enables all the C99 features currently supported and
disables other extensions. Again, you can use gcc as an example of
how to get it right: gcc -std=c89 vs gcc -std=c99. Don't be afraid to
look at what other people working on similar projects are doing.
[color=blue]
>Go ahead. I do not fear discussions. lcc-win32 has
>a download rate of approx 5000/month. There are
>thousands of users that are using the software I built.
>
>True, there are bugs, and problems. I try to solve them
>as they arise.[/color]

On the contrary, you're adopting a paranoid attitude when people report
them to you, as proved by this very subthread...

People are often asking here about a free compiler to use under Windows.
I had a look at yours precisely because I was intending to recommend it
as an option (I'm not a Windows programmer myself). In its current state,
I'm afraid I can only recommend them NOT to use it and to consider one of
the gcc ports instead. Too bad...

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Dan.Pop@ifh.de

[Ioannis Vranos]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

"Dan Pop" <Dan.Pop@cern.c h> wrote in message
news:c5m02f$5e2 $1@sunnews.cern .ch...[color=blue]
>
> Unfortunately, this is not a matter of opinion. Here are a few hard facts
> about your implementation:
>
> 1. Inconsistent documentation. MANUAL.DOC says that -ANSI is the
> right option for putting the compiler in conforming mode. The online
> help says that you need -ansic for this purpose. Only the latter
> is actually recognised by the compiler, but the result is not a
> conforming compiler.
>
> 2. I couldn't find the implementation' s document of conformance (maybe
> I didn't try hard enough).
>
> An implementation shall be accompanied by a document that defines
> ^^^^^^^^
> all implementation-defined and locale-specific characteristics
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> and all extensions.[/color]


The above two are personally unimportant to me.


[color=blue]
> 3. Dirty headers. Non-standard functions are declared even when the
> compiler is invoked with the extensions disabled, breaking correct
> C programs. See the example below.
>
> 4. Bogus/idiotic warnings when all warnings are enabled. See the example
> below.
>
> 5. Badly needed warnings not produced even when all warnings are enabled:
>
> T:\lcc>type test.c
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int fileno;
>
> int main()
> {
> printf("hello world %d\n", "bar");
> }
>
> T:\lcc>lcc -ansic -A test.c
> Error test.c: 3 redeclaration of 'fileno' previously declared at[/color]
h:\lcc\include[color=blue]
> \stdio.h 149
> Warning test.c: 6 old-style function definition for 'main'
> Warning test.c: 6 missing prototype for 'main'
> Warning test.c: 6 'int main()' is a non-ANSI definition
> 1 errors, 3 warnings
>
> Let's look at each diagnostic:
>
> Error test.c: 3 redeclaration of 'fileno' previously declared at[/color]
h:\lcc\include\ stdio.h 149[color=blue]
>
> stdio.h has no business to declare an identifier "fileno" when the
> compiler is invoked in conforming mode. Chapter and verse available.
>
> Warning test.c: 6 old-style function definition for 'main'
>
> This one is OK. Except for the fact that the line number is wrong: main
> id defined on line 5.
>
> Warning test.c: 6 missing prototype for 'main'
>
> I can't see any call to main() in my program, so why should I provide
> a prototype for it? And I've been already chastised for using an
> old-style definition for it, right?
>
> Warning test.c: 6 'int main()' is a non-ANSI definition
>
> That's BULLSHIT, Jacob. 'int main()' *is* an ANSI definition. It's even
> a C99-conforming definition for the main function. If you don't
> believe me, ask in comp.std.c.[/color]



The above are indeed serious but have you to be insulting? Are you at war or
something? There is no need to hurt our feelings.


[color=blue]
> Now, for the missing warnings:
>
> 1. The printf call is obviously wrong, yet the compiler has no objection.[/color]


Well it could give a warning but i do not think it could be signaled as
error. However your 3,4,5 are indeed serious.




[color=blue]
> 2. main() is defined as returning int, but it doesn't return anything at
> all. Methinks a warning is badly needed.[/color]


Nope. Valid C99 behaviour.


[color=blue]
> Imagine that YOU were discovering all these things when evaluating someone
> else's work. What would you think?[/color]


Thinking is one thing, criticising (and better suggesting) is another thing.
Insulting is a third thing! This guy is trying to create a useful thing for
free, i think he should be encouraged to continue with the right direction.
You also are trying to do a good thing here by making useful suggestions,
but you are doing it in the wrong way!



[color=blue]
> For reference, this what I get from gcc, when invoked in conforming mode
> and with additional warnings enabled:
>
> fangorn:/tmp/lcc 387> gcc -ansi -pedantic -Wall test.c
> test.c: In function `main':
> test.c:7: warning: int format, pointer arg (arg 2)
> test.c:8: warning: control reaches end of non-void function[/color]


Yours must be old. Mine:

C:\c>\mingw\bin \gcc -std=c99 -pedantic-errors -O3 -Wall temp.c -o temp
temp.c: In function `main':
temp.c:7: warning: int format, pointer arg (arg 2)

C:\c>

[color=blue]
> No bullshit and only the really objectionable "features" of my program
> are reported. Do you understand now why your compiler looks like a bad
> joke in the eyes of a competent professional, who expects high quality
> tools and not toys, even when they are free?[/color]


Behaviour is *very important* if someone does not want to live alone in
another planet.


[color=blue][color=green]
> >No institution has supported lcc-win32. It is
> >a user supported project. There is no GNU,
> >nor Stallman, nor Microsoft.[/color]
>
> This is a lame excuse for not doing the right thing. It doesn't take more
> effort to get things right, you just have to think more seriously about
> what you're doing. I refuse to believe that fixing all the issues I've
> mentioned above takes herculean efforts.[/color]


Again nice effort in the wrong way.


[color=blue][color=green]
> >Not even a simple sentence like
> >"lcc-win32 supports long long" will go unnoticed.[/color]
>
> You have a very strange attitude toward bug reports. Yes, it was meant
> as a bug report, because it is not done the right way: -ansic should put
> the compiler in the only conforming mode it can current support (C89)
> and the C99 support should be available *only* when the compiler is
> invoked with extensions enabled. You can also add an additional switch,
> say -c99, that enables all the C99 features currently supported and
> disables other extensions. Again, you can use gcc as an example of
> how to get it right: gcc -std=c89 vs gcc -std=c99. Don't be afraid to
> look at what other people working on similar projects are doing.[/color]


GCC does not fully support C99, yet ansi invokes it's C99 spirit.


[color=blue]
> On the contrary, you're adopting a paranoid attitude when people report
> them to you, as proved by this very subthread...[/color]


If someone suggested something to you and at the meantime was calling you
d**khead, wouldn't you get angry? I think that you don't understand that
others get your words more seriously ad you are missing the fact that the
same words from a completely stranger is a heavy insult than when from a
close friend.






Ioannis Vranos

[Ioannis Vranos]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

"Ioannis Vranos" <ivr@guesswh.at .emails.ru> wrote in message
news:c5m2uf$12h j$1@ulysses.noc .ntua.gr...[color=blue]
>
> Yours must be old. Mine:
>
> C:\c>\mingw\bin \gcc -std=c99 -pedantic-errors -O3 -Wall temp.c -o temp
> temp.c: In function `main':
> temp.c:7: warning: int format, pointer arg (arg 2)[/color]


My mistake:

C:\c>\mingw\bin \gcc -ansi -pedantic-errors -O3 -Wall temp.c -o temp
temp.c: In function `main':
temp.c:7: warning: int format, pointer arg (arg 2)
temp.c:8: warning: control reaches end of non-void function



But i do not think the warning about int main() is so important. The others
you mentioned were. But again you must try to be more constructive. :-)






Ioannis Vranos

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

"Ioannis Vranos" <ivr@guesswh.at .emails.ru> wrote:[color=blue]
>"Dan Pop" <Dan.Pop@cern.c h> wrote in message
>news:c5m02f$5e 2$1@sunnews.cer n.ch...[/color]
<snip>[color=blue][color=green]
>> 2. I couldn't find the implementation' s document of conformance (maybe
>> I didn't try hard enough).
>>
>> An implementation shall be accompanied by a document that defines
>> ^^^^^^^^
>> all implementation-defined and locale-specific characteristics
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> and all extensions.[/color]
>
>
>The above two are personally unimportant to me.[/color]

Sorry, but to me it seems extremely unlikely that you are not
interested in _any_ implementation defined behaviour. :^>

<snip>[color=blue][color=green]
>> Warning test.c: 6 'int main()' is a non-ANSI definition
>>
>> That's BULLSHIT, Jacob. 'int main()' *is* an ANSI definition. It's even
>> a C99-conforming definition for the main function. If you don't
>> believe me, ask in comp.std.c.[/color]
>
>The above are indeed serious but have you to be insulting? Are you at war or
>something? There is no need to hurt our feelings.[/color]

That's Dan. Attempts to make him improve his diplomatic skills turned
out to be futile.

<snip>[color=blue][color=green]
>> 2. main() is defined as returning int, but it doesn't return anything at
>> all. Methinks a warning is badly needed.[/color]
>
>Nope. Valid C99 behaviour.[/color]

But not in C89, the standard in question.

<snip>

Regards
--
Irrwahn Grausewitz (irrwahn33@free net.de)
welcome to clc: http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
clc faq-list : http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/
clc OT guide : http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html

[Ioannis Vranos]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

"Irrwahn Grausewitz" <irrwahn33@free net.de> wrote in message
news:u99t70135p 5duo5su86q9gs6p q2md6gopo@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
>
> That's Dan. Attempts to make him improve his diplomatic skills turned
> out to be futile.[/color]


Still, we live with other people in this world.






Regards,

Ioannis Vranos

[Ioannis Vranos]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

"Ioannis Vranos" <ivr@guesswh.at .emails.ru> wrote in message
news:c5m917$1jg g$1@ulysses.noc .ntua.gr...[color=blue]
> "Irrwahn Grausewitz" <irrwahn33@free net.de> wrote in message
> news:u99t70135p 5duo5su86q9gs6p q2md6gopo@4ax.c om...[color=green]
> >
> > That's Dan. Attempts to make him improve his diplomatic skills turned
> > out to be futile.[/color]
>
>
> Still, we live with other people in this world.[/color]


And it's not diplomatic skills, it's interaction skills.

Anyway.






Ioannis Vranos

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

"Ioannis Vranos" <ivr@guesswh.at .emails.ru> wrote:[color=blue]
>"Irrwahn Grausewitz" <irrwahn33@free net.de> wrote in message
>news:u99t70135 p5duo5su86q9gs6 pq2md6gopo@4ax. com...[color=green]
>>
>> That's Dan. Attempts to make him improve his diplomatic skills turned
>> out to be futile.[/color]
>
>Still, we live with other people in this world.[/color]

Correct. There are clever ones and dumb ones, nice ones and not
so nice ones, rude experts and kind imbeciles; there are people
feeling the necessity to practise self discipline in human
interaction, and there's Dan Pop. ;-)

If it were not for his expertise, he probably would've been
killfiled by everybody around. However, the art of successfully
communicating with Dan includes the ability to listen to what he
has to say, while blissfully ignoring the way he presents it.
His exaggerations can actually be very amusing, if you avoid to
make the mistake of taking it personally.

If I were to complain about anyone in amusenet, I'd rather object
to people like the resident quote forging troll in c.l.c, or the
ineffable nilgewater dispenser in c.p. But anyway, that's just me.

Regards
--
Irrwahn Grausewitz (irrwahn33@free net.de)
welcome to clc: http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
clc faq-list : http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/
clc OT guide : http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html

[Ioannis Vranos]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?

"Irrwahn Grausewitz" <irrwahn33@free net.de> wrote in message
news:bqgt70ldrb re9t7pdn7cj01qs pp098h9ju@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
>
> Correct. There are clever ones and dumb ones, nice ones and not
> so nice ones, rude experts and kind imbeciles; there are people
> feeling the necessity to practise self discipline in human
> interaction, and there's Dan Pop. ;-)
>
> If it were not for his expertise, he probably would've been
> killfiled by everybody around. However, the art of successfully
> communicating with Dan includes the ability to listen to what he
> has to say, while blissfully ignoring the way he presents it.
> His exaggerations can actually be very amusing, if you avoid to
> make the mistake of taking it personally.
>
> If I were to complain about anyone in amusenet, I'd rather object
> to people like the resident quote forging troll in c.l.c, or the
> ineffable nilgewater dispenser in c.p. But anyway, that's just me.[/color]


Perhaps someone will write a Dan Pop to rest human speech translator, it
can't be that difficult. One simple app where one will input Dan Pop
sentences, and read the output. Like something that will replace "B*****IT"
with "Yes, but".

Well if i have some free time this weekend i will make a GUI Dan Pop
translator in .NET and make it available for download somewhere. :-)






Ioannis Vranos

[jacob navia]

Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?


"Dan Pop" <Dan.Pop@cern.c h> a écrit dans le message de
news:c5m02f$5e2 $1@sunnews.cern .ch...[color=blue]
> In <c5kgf2$ktc$1@n ews-reader1.wanadoo .fr> "jacob navia"[/color]
<jacob@jacob.re mcomp.fr> writes:[color=blue]
>
>
> 2. main() is defined as returning int, but it doesn't return anything at
> all. Methinks a warning is badly needed.[/color]

I HAD this warning, but in a discussion in this SAME GROUP in which YOU
also participated I was pointed to the C99 standard that defines main as
returning zero when no result is specified. I worked a day to implement
and test this "feature".

This is just bad faith Dan.

This discussion was a few weeks ago!