Question

[santosh]

Re: Question

Richard Heathfield wrote:

santosh said:
>
<snip>
>

>Discuss C here. Discuss C++ in comp.lang.c++. Discuss threads in
>comp.programmi ng.threads. Discuss Windows programming in
>comp.os.ms-windows.program ming.win32. Discuss POSIX in
>comp.unix.prog ramming. Discuss assembler in comp.os.asm.x86 and
>alt.lang.asm . Discuss hardware in alt.comp.hardwa re and
>comp.sys.ibm-pc.hardware.* among others. Discuss etc. in alt.etc.etc.
>>
>There, not so hard is it?

>
You wouldn't have thought so, but apparently it's beyond the ability
of some people to grasp even such a simple idea as this.
>
I still think there's a little scope for lightening up in clc, but
whilst the consensus remains as it is, the only polite thing to do is
to comply (whilst, perhaps, doing a little light lobbying on
occasion).

I don't mind an occasional POSIX or Win32 based answer (with a
redirection for more discussion), but Twink is inviting questions on
anything to do with computers, which, IMO, can only damage clc, if he
is successful.

[Richard]

Re: Question

santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrites:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

>santosh said:
>>
><snip>
>>

>>Discuss C here. Discuss C++ in comp.lang.c++. Discuss threads in
>>comp.programm ing.threads. Discuss Windows programming in
>>comp.os.ms-windows.program ming.win32. Discuss POSIX in
>>comp.unix.pro gramming. Discuss assembler in comp.os.asm.x86 and
>>alt.lang.as m. Discuss hardware in alt.comp.hardwa re and
>>comp.sys.ib m-pc.hardware.* among others. Discuss etc. in alt.etc.etc.
>>>
>>There, not so hard is it?

>>
>You wouldn't have thought so, but apparently it's beyond the ability
>of some people to grasp even such a simple idea as this.
>>
>I still think there's a little scope for lightening up in clc, but
>whilst the consensus remains as it is, the only polite thing to do is
>to comply (whilst, perhaps, doing a little light lobbying on
>occasion).

>
I don't mind an occasional POSIX or Win32 based answer (with a
redirection for more discussion), but Twink is inviting questions on
anything to do with computers, which, IMO, can only damage clc, if he
is successful.

Put it away Santosh. You would be far better off ignoring anything you
dont like rather than boring the rest of us with your small minded
outlook on what YOU think CLC should be.

[santosh]

Re: Question

Richard wrote:

santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrites:

[ ... ]

>I don't mind an occasional POSIX or Win32 based answer (with a
>redirection for more discussion), but Twink is inviting questions on
>anything to do with computers, which, IMO, can only damage clc, if he
>is successful.

>
Put it away Santosh. You would be far better off ignoring anything you
dont like rather than boring the rest of us with your small minded
outlook on what YOU think CLC should be.

Not just me. Most of those who have voiced their views seem to agree
that, at the very least, AT's take on clc's topicality is wrong.

Anyway thanks for your advice.

[utilisateur de lcc-win32]

Re: Question

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Max <invalid@invali d.invalidwrites :
>

>On 11 Jun 2008 21:23:46 GMT, richard@cogsci. ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin)
>wrote:
>>

>>>In article <1292858.4WXqv0 htDk@aioe.org>, Max <invalid@invali d.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Can I ask C questions here?
>>>
>>>I don't know. Why not give it a try and see if you're up to it?

>>
>If I compile this function
>>
>unsigned short div(unsigned short a, unsigned short b)
>{
> return a / b;
>}
>>
>with warnings turned on, I am informed that
>>
>Warning test.c: 3 Assignment of int to unsigned short. Possible loss of
>precision
>Warning test.c: 4 Assignment of int to unsigned short. Possible loss of
>precision
>Warning test.c: 4 Assignment of int to unsigned short. Possible loss of
>precision
>>
>(line 3 is the line with the return statement, line 4
>is the line with the closing brace)
>>
>(1) What does that mean, specifically, what is precision
>in this context?

>
On many systems (yours included) int can represent all the values of
unsigned short and more. This has two consequences:
>
(a) before the arithmetic happens the values of a and b are converted
to int;
>
(b) when the int result is returned, some bits might be lost in the
conversion to unsigned short. This might be a real worry if you
were multiplying, for example. It matters less with a divide.
>
The message is little confusing because it talks about assignment, but
parameter passing and value returning are treated much like assignment
in C so the compiler is probably borrowing a message from another
context. In this context precision refers to the number of
representable values -- wider types, in general, have greater
precision.
>

>(2) How do I get rid of them? I tried all sorts of casts,
>unsuccessfully . In a program with lots of such functions,
>real problems can easily get lost, but I don't want to
>disable warnings.

>
What compiler is it? You may has to ask in a specific group. The
message does not correspond to any that come from ne of the compiler I
have access to, so I can't help there.

They look familiar to me. Lcc-win32 prints this messages when
requesting a *VERY* high warning level, i.e, -A -pedantic, or -A -A
or -pedantic -pedantic, but then you asked for it and I find this
warnings are very useful!

With the Intel compiler,
writing
>
return (unsigned short)(a / b);
>
gets rid of a similar message.
>

[Richard Bos]

Re: Question

utilisateur de lcc-win32 <udlw@nospam.co mwrote:

Stop astro-turfing.

Richard

[utilisateur de lcc-win32]

Re: Question

Richard Bos wrote:

utilisateur de lcc-win32 <udlw@nospam.co mwrote:
>
Stop astro-turfing.

I did not write that.

I do not even know what that means.

(btw, what does "astro-turfing" mean?)

[santosh]

Re: Question

utilisateur de lcc-win32 wrote:

Richard Bos wrote:
>

>utilisateur de lcc-win32 <udlw@nospam.co mwrote:
>>
>Stop astro-turfing.

>
I did not write that.
>
I do not even know what that means.
>
(btw, what does "astro-turfing" mean?)

<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Astroturfing>

Also for your case:

<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28I nternet%29>