Pedants

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Pedants

santosh said:

<snip>

And BTW, correct me if I'm wrong but "K&R C" isn't exactly a standard
right?

Tricky one. It's not a standard in the ISO or ANSI sense, of course. But it
could reasonably be argued that an implementation of the language
described in K&R1 is a "K&R-conforming" implementation. Furthermore, K&R C
(as so described) is topical in clc, for historical reasons. It's slightly
inaccurate, then, but nevertheless convenient to describe it as a standard
when one has a reasonable expectation that a significant proportion of
those who read that description are bright/experienced/knowledgeable
enough to recognise it as an expedient shorthand rather than as a literal
claim.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Erwin Lindemann]

Re: Pedants

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

jacob navia <jacob@nospam.c omwrites:
>

>Dear pedantic user

>
Dear Jacob
>

>What is a pedant?

>
What is the -pedantic flag? As far as I can see you don't document
the use of it.

Not wanting to pour more oil into this, but the '-pedantic' option was
advertised in September 2006 in a thread called 'New -pedantic option
for lcc-win32', cross-posted to comp.lang.c and comp.compilers. lcc .
It's also mentioned in 'readme.txt'.

From the announcement:

| This flag will make
|
| _stdcall
|
| no longer a recognized part of the language.
|
| Anonymous structures will not be accepted either.

If I remember correctly, it broke compilation of <math.h>, and one or
two other standard headers relying on '_stdcall' being a keyword,
right then.

But: from reading the announcement, for some reason I was always under
the impression this option was never really intended to be used. Plus,
it appears to have a different meaning now.


Thanks
--
Erwin Lindemann

[Ben Bacarisse]

Re: Pedants

Erwin Lindemann <elindema@wupp. invalidwrites:

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

<snip>

>What is the -pedantic flag? As far as I can see you don't document
>the use of it.

>
Not wanting to pour more oil into this, but the '-pedantic' option was
advertised in September 2006 in a thread called 'New -pedantic option
for lcc-win32', cross-posted to comp.lang.c and comp.compilers. lcc .
It's also mentioned in 'readme.txt'.

Ah. I missed that. To check (before I posted) I looked in the help
file, not the readme. I note that the readme just mentions it -- it
does not say what it does.

From the announcement:

<snip description>

OK, it was once intended to have a use but things have moved on now
since it no longer supported with that meaning.

That seems a shame. I find strict checking by a compiler quite useful
but Jacob is entitled to move lcc-win32 in whatever direction he
thinks best.

--
Ben.

[CBFalconer]

Re: Pedants

santosh wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:

>Malcolm McLean wrote:

>>>

>... snip ...

>>>
>>However Jacob publishes only his binaries. I can't actually
>>remember seeing any C source by him. He's not one of those people
>>who, like me, are constantly providing little snippetts.
>>>
>>Which leads us to a philosophical point. Can we tell the quality
>>of code purely from the binaries?

>>
>Well, his principal item is labelled as a 'C compiler', which has
>a fairly strict published standard, casually known as the C99
>standard. This gives us an easily applied criterion - simply
>report all failures to comply with that C standard.

>
Bugs in the binary tell us about possible bugs in the source,
which is one indication of the "quality" of the source code, but
beyond that one needs to examine the disassembly of the program
and examine it's machine code and performance against a
functionally identical, identically compiled, "control" program,
to say more about the "quality" of the source code.

Jacobs source is NOT open-source, so you don't have source access.
The only action available is to execute the object code, or
possibly disassemble it. The latter is doomed.

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


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

[CBFalconer]

Re: Pedants

Tor Rustad wrote:

Malcolm McLean skrev:
>

>Which leads us to a philosophical point. Can we tell the quality
>of code purely from the binaries?

>
Yup, black box testing can detect quite a number of defects. For
C compilers, Perennial & Plum Hall has validation test suits,
mandatory for UNIX 03 certification.

The problem is that, as far as I know, that (or any other trusted)
validation suite is not generally available as open-source.

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


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

[CBFalconer]

Re: Pedants

jacob navia wrote:

Bob Nelson wrote:
>

>The intent is to emphasize that C is, without otherwise being
>modified, that which is defined by ISO/IEC.
>>
>I find this well-known image appropriate when I see a posting
>about clearing the screen, writing to the Windows registry,
>reading directories and other such off-topic atrocities here in
>c.l.c:

>
Yeah sure.
>
C is ISO C. Posix doesn't exist. Windows doesn't exist, the
Mac doesn't exist.
>
Network programming? Off topic. GUI programming? Off topic.

Now you've got the idea. At last.

.... Further inconsistent garbage snipped ...

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


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

[Serve Lau]

Re: Pedants


"Erwin Lindemann" <elindema@wupp. invalidschreef in bericht
news:s8b3j5-la4.fx4@wupp.in valid...

If I remember correctly, it broke compilation of <math.h>, and one or
two other standard headers relying on '_stdcall' being a keyword,
right then.

ye why not do the same as gcc jacob? Add a pragma to lcc so the compiler
knows its compiling a system header and you ignore the pedantic flag then.

[Joachim Schmitz]

Re: Pedants

jacob navia wrote:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>Show polite reples of Jacob to bug reports, start with just one!

BTW: AT meanwhile showed 2 examples of reasonable answer of your, so I stand
corrected here.

>RH isn't using win-lcc (he says, and I have no reason to not believe
>that), so none of the bug reports came from him.
>>

>
Those aren't bug reports. The regulars insisted in their stupid
pedantic stuff and I added a flag to please them.

Aha, so you added it? So you added a bug, as it doesn't work but craps out
on perfectly legal C code.

Instead of filing a bug report, they laugh at me with their
"new to c" posts:

I don't laugh at you nor your programs, I do laugh at your behavoir though.
If the post of 'new to c' annoys you, just ignore it. Or, much better, just
reply with admitting an oversight and that this -pedantic switch is no
longer supported and has just been forgotten to be taken out your code.

What happens? Am I doing something wrong?

Yes. Attitute, behavoir

Then Heathfield starts saying that my compiler is useless, etc.

He didn't. He just claims it not to be a C-Compiler as it doesn't take
perfeclty valid

What have you done for the community Mr Schmitz?
>
Is there any program from you *I* can laugh at?

I do post here occasionally with attempts to help people. I do make mistakes
in doing so sometimes. I'm not unfailable and never claimed to be. So just
for example I quite frequently forget that things that work in POSIX are not
guaranteed to work in ISO C.
Regardless there's no reason to laugh at me or my post, just tell me where
I'm wrong and why.

No. Not even that. Nothing. Like your friend Heathfield.

I don't know him, so how could he be my friend? I just sometimes (and not
always, had my fights with him too) happen to agree with him (actually more
after than I don't).

Bye, Jojo

[Richard]

Re: Pedants

Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrites:

jacob navia said:
>

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>jacob navia said:
>>>
>>>santosh wrote:
>>>>I see your point. Efficiency (both speed and resources consumed) is
>>>>one aspect of "quality of code".
>>>Lcc-win is the smallest compiler system in the C world.
>>>It is around 5 times faster than gcc in compilation
>>>time, and in execution time it is approx 75-85% of the
>>>speed of the gcc generated code.
>>>>
>>>This are facts. Easily measurable by anyone.
>>>
>>If the program doesn't have to work properly, I can easily write a
>>compiler system that is a thousand times smaller than yours and a
>>thousand times faster. There is more to quality than speed and size.
>>>

>>
>If you have nothing to say. Please do not say it here.

>
Just because you don't understand me, that doesn't mean I have nothing to
say.
>

>The "pedantic" flag is no longer supported, and if you invoke
>>
>lcc -pedantic pedantic.c
>>
>you get:
>>
>"Pedants are no longer supported!"

>
That's an implementation issue, and as such should be discussed in a
newsgroup where that implementation is topical, such as comp.compilers. lcc
>

>and the program exits!

>
Fine, but hardly topical here.
>

>:-)
>>
>Obviously the fact that lcc-win is much faster than gcc
>or other compilers doesn't count.

>
Not in comp.lang.c, no, where we discuss the language, not implementations
thereof. If you want to race compilers, please do it in a newsgroup where
it's topical.
>
But for the record, no, if the compiler *doesn't work*, it doesn't matter
how fast it is - same as with any program.
>

>What counts is if it
>supports c89 or maybe another more obsolete version of the language.

>
No, what counts is that it is an implementation, and therefore needs to be
discussed in a group where it is topical, rather than here, where we
discuss the language itself, not implementations thereof. I do not
expect

No "we" do not. YOU do. So please stay out of threads were we discuss
more real C issues.

[Ralf Damaschke]

Re: Pedants

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

>Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>>Show polite reples of Jacob to bug reports, start with just one!

BTW: AT meanwhile showed 2 examples of reasonable answer of your, so I
stand corrected here.

<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.compilers. lcc/browse_frm/thread/191a54fa4ec2701 e>
<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.compilers. lcc/browse_frm/thread/df047137e694c12 8>

I disagree. The OPs only were posted to comp.compilers. lcc. That does not
qualify as "here".

Ralf

[jacob navia]

Re: Pedants

Ralf Damaschke wrote:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>

>jacob navia wrote:

>>Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>>>Show polite reples of Jacob to bug reports, start with just one!

>BTW: AT meanwhile showed 2 examples of reasonable answer of your, so I
>stand corrected here.

>
<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.compilers. lcc/browse_frm/thread/191a54fa4ec2701 e>
<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.compilers. lcc/browse_frm/thread/df047137e694c12 8>
>
I disagree. The OPs only were posted to comp.compilers. lcc. That does not
qualify as "here".
>
Ralf

Because "here" there weren't any bug reports.

1) All "bugs" posted here were ironic stuff to show how bad
my compiler is. For instance somebody posted a "bug report"
when he defined a dprintf function. It is not intrinsically
bad, and the correction is easy, but the general tone is:
"I am a new user and I can't understand"
Then, Heathfield and co will jump in as if they weren't
involved:
"Of course, that is a horrible compiler", etc.

2) No problems whatsoever with *real* problems, bad code
generation, etc. The only "problems" are cosmetic.

PEDANTS like those bugs, they make an implicit assertion
about "book knowledge" as cited in dictionary.com when
consulting the definition of "pedant".

3) Use of undocumented flags (like -ansic89) that they gather
by looking into the executable of linux or whatever. Then,
Heathfield springs in and writes:
"That compiler doesn't conform to *any* standard"

Since most gcc headers will not compile with other
compilers I could post HUNDREDS of those bugs here,
just to show that gcc is "bad". Obviously I will not
do that, I am not a pedant.

This group is lacking most of a real discussion about issues
in software development. Any such discussions will be killed by this
people with their "off topic" stuff. Here, only THEY can discuss
anything that goes beyond

int main (void);

or printf directives, or students homework.

I have tried to initiate such discussions, to show code for a
general container library for instance.

There wasn't a SINGLE comment about my code.

In that code I showed a software for developing general containers
with the example of a resizable array.

Nothing.

NONE of the people that now tell (in this same group)

"Jacob never posts source code"

This is a denigration campaign. And you have seen that, and apparently
you did not notice.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Joachim Schmitz]

Re: Pedants

Ralf Damaschke wrote:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>

>jacob navia wrote:

>>Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>>>Show polite reples of Jacob to bug reports, start with just one!

>BTW: AT meanwhile showed 2 examples of reasonable answer of your, so
>I stand corrected here.

>
<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.compilers. lcc/browse_frm/thread/191a54fa4ec2701 e>
<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.compilers. lcc/browse_frm/thread/df047137e694c12 8>
>
I disagree. The OPs only were posted to comp.compilers. lcc. That does
not qualify as "here".

Damn, I missed that, thanks for pointing this out. I'll check AT's posts
much more carefull now (or just ignore them)

Bye, Jojo

[Joachim Schmitz]

Re: Pedants

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 22 Jun 2008 at 20:23, Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>Antoninus Twink wrote:

>>On the contrary, Jacob responds politely to polite questions.
>>Witness his patience in the recent "Eddie" thread (another
>>Heathfield sock-puppet?).

>Show polite reples of Jacob to bug reports, start with just one!

>
Besides the thread mentioned in my quotes, here are a couple from this
year:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.compilers.lcc/browse_frm/thread/191a54fa4ec2701e

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....047137e694c128

As I've just been made aware of you're cheating! These ain't posts to
comp.lang.c.

Bye, Jojo

[vippstar@gmail.com]

Re: Pedants

On Jun 23, 10:36 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.c omwrote:

Ralf Damaschke wrote:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>

jacob navia wrote:
>Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>>Show polite reples of Jacob to bug reports, start with just one!
BTW: AT meanwhile showed 2 examples of reasonable answer of your, so I
stand corrected here.

>

<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.compilers. lcc/browse_frm/thread/1...>
<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.compilers. lcc/browse_frm/thread/d...>

>

I disagree. The OPs only were posted to comp.compilers. lcc. That does not
qualify as "here".

>

Ralf

>
Because "here" there weren't any bug reports.
>
1) All "bugs" posted here were ironic stuff to show how bad

Just assumptions.

my compiler is. For instance somebody posted a "bug report"
when he defined a dprintf function. It is not intrinsically
bad, and the correction is easy, but the general tone is:
"I am a new user and I can't understand"
Then, Heathfield and co will jump in as if they weren't
involved:
"Of course, that is a horrible compiler", etc.

Followed by accusations.

2) No problems whatsoever with *real* problems, bad code
generation, etc. The only "problems" are cosmetic.

The problems are real. It does seem like the bug reports are done on
purpose.
You seem to be suggesting that these bug reports are being done by mr
Heathfield himself, which I believe to be false.
I think it's just a troll finding all these "bugs" because the troll
knows you will get pissed about it, you will make a fuss about it and
a lot of noise will be generated.

3) Use of undocumented flags (like -ansic89) that they gather
by looking into the executable of linux or whatever. Then,
Heathfield springs in and writes:
"That compiler doesn't conform to *any* standard"

If the flag is undocumented, it's not a bug whatever it does.

Since most gcc headers will not compile with other
compilers I could post HUNDREDS of those bugs here,
just to show that gcc is "bad". Obviously I will not
do that, I am not a pedant.

That's nonsense, it has nothing to do with your compilers bugs. The
implementations headers need not to be compilable by other
implementations AFAIK. In fact the standard headers need not to be
real files, so they don't need to be shared among compilers/
implementations .

This group is lacking most of a real discussion about issues
in software development. Any such discussions will be killed by this
people with their "off topic" stuff. Here, only THEY can discuss
anything that goes beyond

Why are you constantly failing to understand how usenet works?
If group A has subject A, you talk ONLY about A. If you want to talk
about B, you go to group B. Is it *that* hard to understand?
Every morning you wake up, look at my post, read these lines. Repeat
until you've understood why 'software development issues' are off-
topic.

int main (void);
>
or printf directives, or students homework.

That's a lie, here you can discuss ANSI/ISO C and perhaps C's history
without being off-topic.

I have tried to initiate such discussions, to show code for a
general container library for instance.
>
There wasn't a SINGLE comment about my code.

Because it was off-topic, or because noone is obliged to reply to a
specific article on usenet.
<snip>

This is a denigration campaign. And you have seen that, and apparently
you did not notice.

You're paranoid and trolls like that.

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Pedants

vippstar@gmail. com said:

On Jun 23, 10:36 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.c omwrote:

<snip>

>[...] The only "problems" are cosmetic.

The problems are real. It does seem like the bug reports are done on
purpose.
You seem to be suggesting that these bug reports are being done by mr
Heathfield himself, which I believe to be false.

You're right - it's false. I have never used lcc-win32 in the past, and I
don't plan to use it in the future, so I'm unlikely to encounter any bugs
in it, so I'm in no position to report them. I am, however, in a position
to comment on bug reports posted here.

I think it's just a troll finding all these "bugs" because the troll
knows you will get pissed about it, you will make a fuss about it and
a lot of noise will be generated.

I think you're right, and Mr Navia's best response would be to refuse to
rise to the bait, but instead to fix the bugs. A compiler with no bugs
leaves the trolls nowhere to go.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999