lcc-win32 conformance question

[teapot]

If I compile this program

int main(void)
{
return 0; // foo bar baz
}

with

"lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"

(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style of
comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code should be invalid?

How standards conformant is (unnamed compiler)?

[Ian Collins]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question

teapot wrote:

If I compile this program
>
int main(void)
{
return 0; // foo bar baz
}
>
with
>
"lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"
>
(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style of
comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code should be invalid?
>
How standards conformant is (unnamed compiler)?
>

Why are you asking on a C++ group?

--
Ian Collins.

[Ian Collins]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question

Ian Collins wrote:

teapot wrote:

>If I compile this program
>>
>int main(void)
>{
> return 0; // foo bar baz
>}
>>
>with
>>
> "lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"
>>
>(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style of
>comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code should be invalid?
>>
>How standards conformant is (unnamed compiler)?
>>

Why are you asking on a C++ group?
>

Oops, I buggered that up, wrong group open...

--
Ian Collins.

[Bartc]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question


"teapot" <tea@pot.invali dwrote in message
news:1910893.vo mING923G@aioe.o rg...

>
If I compile this program
>
int main(void)
{
return 0; // foo bar baz
}
>
with
>
"lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"
>
(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style of
comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code should be invalid?
>
How standards conformant is (unnamed compiler)?

You mean, the unnamed compiler called lcc-win32?

Well, I couldn't get an error message from it. Neither from using
DigitalMars DMC -A.

GCC of course complained, but then with it's 10000 options it would be odd
if it missed that one.

Sorry I didn't have any more command-line compilers to try..

I guess some are strictly conformant are some aren't. Perhaps there should
be a certificate issued to conformant ones to stop you absentmindedly
sneaking in a // comment or two!

--
bartc

[Ben Bacarisse]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question

teapot <tea@pot.invali dwrites:

If I compile this program
>
int main(void)
{
return 0; // foo bar baz
}
>
with
>
"lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"
>
(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style of
comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code should be invalid?

If the compiler claims conformance to the obvious standard when passed
that flag then it is in error. Of course, just passing flag means
nothing. Does the documentation claim conformance to C90 (= ANSI C89)?

How standards conformant is (unnamed compiler)?

Do you mean lcc-win32? If so, I have found problems with compound
literals, VLA parameters, complex numbers and designated initialisers
so some of the C99 parts are a bit rough round the edges. There have
been a few other reports of conformance issues, but they may well have
been fixed. For example, it used to consider long * and int * to be
compatible types.

It is probably fair to say the standards conformance is not a top
priority for that compiler.

--
Ben.

[jacob navia]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question

Ian Collins wrote:

teapot wrote:

>If I compile this program
>>
>int main(void)
>{
> return 0; // foo bar baz
>}
>>
>with
>>
> "lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"
>>
>(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style of
>comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code should be invalid?
>>
>How standards conformant is (unnamed compiler)?
>>

Why are you asking on a C++ group?
>

Because pissing lcc-win is his favorite spot, like my cat
that pisses everywhere even in my computer!



--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique

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

[santosh]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question

jacob navia wrote:

Ian Collins wrote:

>teapot wrote:

>>If I compile this program
>>>
>>int main(void)
>>{
>> return 0; // foo bar baz
>>}
>>>
>>with
>>>
>> "lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"
>>>
>>(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style
>>of comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code should be
>>invalid?
>>>
>>How standards conformant is (unnamed compiler)?
>>>

>Why are you asking on a C++ group?
>>

>
Because pissing lcc-win is his favorite spot, like my cat
that pisses everywhere even in my computer!

In any case is what the OP claims true? Are there command-line switches
to get a diagnostic for C++ style comments when compiler in strict C90
mode?

PS. I think you should cool down a little and not give these anonymous
posters much weightage (except if they do uncover a real issue in
lcc-win). Even your prose has started suffering.

[Serve Laurijssen]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question


"teapot" <tea@pot.invali dschreef in bericht
news:1910893.vo mING923G@aioe.o rg...

>
If I compile this program
>
int main(void)
{
return 0; // foo bar baz
}
>
with
>
"lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"
>
(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style of
comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code should be invalid?
>
How standards conformant is (unnamed compiler)?

oh no it accepts C++ style comments!!
really, who cares!!

>

[santosh]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question

Serve Laurijssen wrote:

>
"teapot" <tea@pot.invali dschreef in bericht
news:1910893.vo mING923G@aioe.o rg...

>>
>If I compile this program
>>
>int main(void)
>{
> return 0; // foo bar baz
>}
>>
>with
>>
> "lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"
>>
>(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style
>of comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code should be
>invalid?
>>
>How standards conformant is (unnamed compiler)?

>
oh no it accepts C++ style comments!!
really, who cares!!

Anyone who wants to compile the same code under a strictly C90
conforming mode on another compiler which does reject C++ style
comments as syntax errors. All is well if that compiler happens to have
a switch to make it specifically accept this comment style while
retaining strict C90 conformance in all other respects, but most
compilers don't have such fine-grained control. You'll probably need to
compile the code under either C99 conformance (which in turn may not
even be available), or in some other "relaxed" mode which might accept
other non-C90 constructs that would otherwise have been diagnosed.

[CBFalconer]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question

Serve Laurijssen wrote:

"teapot" <tea@pot.invali dschreef in bericht
>

>If I compile this program
>>
>int main(void) {
> return 0; // foo bar baz
>}
>>
>with "lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"
>>
>(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this
>style of comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code
>should be invalid?
>>
>How standards conformant is (unnamed compiler)?

>
oh no it accepts C++ style comments!! really, who cares!!

Anyone trying to prepare source suitable for a C90 compiler, or for
publication on a Usenet newsgroup.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Malcolm McLean]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question


"Serve Laurijssen" <ni@hao.comwrot e in message

oh no it accepts C++ style comments!!
really, who cares!!
>

My Message Passing Interface (MPI) compiler won't accept slash slash
comments. So any portable functions including them have to be rewritten for
it.

It surprised me.

--
Free games and programming goodies.

http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[ymuntyan@gmail.com]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question

On Apr 25, 7:17 pm, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb .me.ukwrote:

teapot <t...@pot.inval idwrites:

If I compile this program

>

int main(void)
{
return 0; // foo bar baz
}

>

with

>

"lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"

>

(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style of
comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code should be invalid?

>
If the compiler claims conformance to the obvious standard when passed
that flag then it is in error.

Why is it an error? A C90 compiler can reject that program,
that's clear; but why does it have to?

Yevgen

[ymuntyan@gmail.com]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question

On Apr 26, 6:37 am, santosh <santosh....@gm ail.comwrote:

jacob navia wrote:

Ian Collins wrote:

teapot wrote:
>If I compile this program

>

>int main(void)
>{
> return 0; // foo bar baz
>}

>

>with

>

> "lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"

>

>(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style
>of comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code should be
>invalid?

>

>How standards conformant is (unnamed compiler)?

>

Why are you asking on a C++ group?

>

Because pissing lcc-win is his favorite spot, like my cat
that pisses everywhere even in my computer!

>
In any case is what the OP claims true? Are there command-line switches
to get a diagnostic for C++ style comments when compiler in strict C90
mode?
>
PS. I think you should cool down a little and not give these anonymous
posters much weightage (except if they do uncover a real issue in
lcc-win). Even your prose has started suffering.

Jacob certainly should not overreact, he harms himself with
that. But you should admit that all the posters assumed
that the given issue is a non-conformance bug, yet nobody
said why it is so. Or at least nobody said that it was *not*
a conformance bug, which effectively is the same thing as
agreeing that it was (comp.lang.c - best resource for newbies,
all mistakes corrected, etc.)

Yevgen

[Lew Pitcher]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question

In comp.lang.c, teapot wrote:

>
If I compile this program
>
int main(void)
{
return 0; // foo bar baz
}
>
with
>
"lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"
>
(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style of
comment illegal in C89

As I understand it, there is nothing in the C89 standard that explicitly
indicates that the C++-style // comment is illegal.

However, a compliant compiler is obliged to interpret the given line
// foo bar baz
as
a division token, followed by
a division token, followed by
an identifier token, followed by
an identifier token, followed by
an identifier token, followed by
a right brace bracket
which, of course, cannot be interpreted as a semantically correct C (C89)
statement. IIRC, a diagnostic should be emitted.

and thus this piece of code should be invalid?
>
How standards conformant is (unnamed compiler)?

--
Lew Pitcher

Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576
http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | GPG public key available by request
---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------

[Ben Bacarisse]

Re: lcc-win32 conformance question

ymuntyan@gmail. com writes:

On Apr 25, 7:17 pm, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb .me.ukwrote:

>teapot <t...@pot.inval idwrites:

If I compile this program

>>

int main(void)
{
return 0; // foo bar baz
}

>>

with

>>

"lc -A -ansi89 foo.c"

>>

(minus the quotes), no diagnostic is produced; but isn't this style of
comment illegal in C89 and thus this piece of code should be invalid?

>>
>If the compiler claims conformance to the obvious standard when passed
>that flag then it is in error.

>
Why is it an error? A C90 compiler can reject that program,
that's clear; but why does it have to?

Because it contains a syntax error. It need not reject it, but a
diagnostic is required. The "error" is that the compiler is silent.

As I said (in snipped text) I have no idea if the -ansi89 flag does
what one might guess it does. As far as I can see lcc-win32 accepts
all kinds of stuff that require a diagnostic when seen by a C90
compiler. Unless someone says what the -ansi89 flag *should* do we
must be silent.

--
Ben.