«

> Johannes Bauer <> writes:

>> Dump of assembler code from 0x2b25ed8bdc77 to 0x2b25ed8bdcb8:
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdc77: lds (%rdi),%ecx
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdc79: mov $0x5d,%dh
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdc7b: add %cl,0xf(%rax)
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdc7e: mov $0x4244f6c3,%esi
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdc83: add %esp,(%rax)
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdc85: jne 0x2b25ed8bdc75
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdc87: cmp $0x2d,%bl
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdc8a: je 0x2b25ed8be0d1
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdc90: cmp $0x2b,%bl
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdc93: movl $0x0,0x78(%rsp)
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdc9b: je 0x2b25ed8be32b
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdca1: movzbl (%r14),%esi
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdca5: xor %edx,%edx
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdca7: test %sil,%sil
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdcaa: je 0x2b25ed8bdcd5
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdcac: cmp 0x0(%rbp),%sil
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdcb0: mov $0x1,%ecx
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdcb5: je 0x2b25ed8bdcc9
>> 0x00002b25ed8bdcb7: jmp 0x2b25ed8bdcdd
>> End of assembler dump.
>>
>> Now I would sure be surprised if that would have helped you.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Johannes

Just a bunch of jumping comparing values of segment registers. Extended
stack pointer so on. Looks like garbage or should I say assembly code.

Bill

Bill Cunningham wrote:
> "Joachim Schmitz" <> wrote in message
> news:g3boc5$1bn$...
>
>>> gcc-3.4.6
>> And you are aware that gcc (no matter what version) is not a fully
>> conforming C99 compiler?
>> Not even with --std=c99.
>
> No I didn't know that. I guess you learn something new everyday.
>
> Bill
>

The problems with gcc's implementation are completely MINIMAL.

What you also do not know is that the "regulars" in this group have been
waging a campaign against standard C because they would like to
return to C89 or maybe even further back.

When anyone speaks about standard C they will point out that
there are no implementations (what is obviously a lie) or
other half truths. "Joachim Schmmitz" is a good example.

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

On 18 Jun, 14:15, Richard<rgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> santosh <santosh....@gmail.com> writes:
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> >> santosh said:
>
> >>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> >>>> santosh said:
>
> >>>>> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>
> >>>>> [ ... ]
>
> >>>>>> I use fprintfs to stderr so there's an error only if there's an
> >>>>>> error.
>
> >>>>> How do you come to this conclusion?
>
> >>>> What are you suggesting, santosh - that there might be an error even
> >>>> if there isn't an error?
>
> >>> I was asking Bill why "there's an error only if there's an error"
> >>> only when he is using fprintf.
>
> >>> One or more errors could have occurred before the fprintf call,
> >>> perhaps after it, perhaps in the call itself. Fprintf doesn't
> >>> guarantee that you will spot all your errors.
>
> >> I've never heard of Fprintf - but you can't begin a sentence with a
> >> lower case letter! Ain't the English/C boundary wonderful?
>
> >> Seriously, you are obviously right - it's our job to spot bugs, and
> >> fprintf is at best a tool that can help us to do that (just as a
> >> debugger is only a tool). Tools are useful, but only fools rely on
> >> them to do things they are not designed to do. We can *use* tools to
> >> do things they are not designed to do, but if we are wise we will
> >> recognise that they may not achieve the goal we intend.
>
> >> In this case, the best approach is probably to use a debugger to find
> >> out where the seg fault is occurring, and then apply one's brain to
> >> find the cause. Debuggers /can/ help with this, especially good ones
> >> that let you explore the state of the call stack (e.g. the Visual C++
> >> debugger, or gdb), but they are no magic wand, and no substitute for a
> >> clear head and a knowledge of the language.
>
> > I completely concur except to say that in this particular case a
> > debugger was not necessary because multiple cases of undefined
> > behaviour simply _stood_ _out_ at a first glance at the code.
>
> Would people stop stating this? OF COURSE some errors "simply stand
> out". But *even* in those cases it does no harm to use one. Sheesh.- Hide quoted text -

ok this is boring. I suspect people are ignoring your THE DEBUGGEr IS
KING stuff
because we've heard it before. But this is once (n?) too many.

- debuggers are useful
- for the record, I sometimes use a debugger
- not everyone finds single stepping throgh code useful
- there are other ways of debugging code

and in this case I can quite understand it is possible to debug the
program
in question without a debugger. Though Bill probably needs one. The
Undefined
Behaviour probaly dosn't leap out at him.


--
Nick Keighley

On 19 Jun, 08:09, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
> > "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.j...@schmitz-digital.de> wrote in message
> >news:g3boc5$1bn$...

> >>> gcc-3.4.6
> >> And you are aware that gcc (no matter what version) is not a fully
> >> conforming C99 compiler?
> >> Not even with --std=c99.
>
> > * * No I didn't know that. I guess you learn something new everyday..

you don't appear to


> The problems with gcc's implementation are completely MINIMAL.

so you agree, gcc isn't a full C99 implementation?


> What you also do not know is that the "regulars" in this group have been
> waging a campaign against standard C because they would like to
> return to C89 or maybe even further back.

do you have any evidence for this extraordinary statement?


> When anyone speaks about standard C they will point out that
> there are no implementations (what is obviously a lie) or
> other half truths. "Joachim Schmmitz" is a good example.

"obviously a lie". I think yours is the obvious lie. Who said
there are no C99 implementations? I think there are about 2. Maybe 3.
win-lcc and gcc are not amongst them.


--
Nick Keighley

jacob navia wrote:
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>> "Joachim Schmitz" <> wrote in message
>> news:g3boc5$1bn$...
>>
>>>> gcc-3.4.6
>>> And you are aware that gcc (no matter what version) is not a fully
>>> conforming C99 compiler?
>>> Not even with --std=c99.
>>
>> No I didn't know that. I guess you learn something new everyday.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
> The problems with gcc's implementation are completely MINIMAL.
The list of problems is several pages long, I wouldn't call that minimal.

> What you also do not know is that the "regulars" in this group have
> been waging a campaign against standard C because they would like to
> return to C89 or maybe even further back.
Nonsense!

> When anyone speaks about standard C they will point out that
> there are no implementations (what is obviously a lie) or
> other half truths. "Joachim Schmmitz" is a good example.
So you're calling me a liar? And misspelling my name?

I know that there are a few fully conforming C99 compiler and have never
claimed otherwise.
The vast majority of compilers though (in numbers of implementations as well
as in number of installations), does not. gcc, M$ Visual C, not even
win-lcc, as reported here in CLC several times.
gcc and Visual C don't even claim to be C99 conforming.

Bye, Jojo

CBFalconer wrote:
> Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>> I know that there are a few fully conforming C99 compiler and have
>> never claimed otherwise. The vast majority of compilers though
>> (in numbers of implementations as well as in number of
>> installations), does not. gcc, M$ Visual C, not even win-lcc, as
>> reported here in CLC several times. gcc and Visual C don't even
>> claim to be C99 conforming.
>
> Visual-C doesn't make any claim past C90/95.
I haven't said otherwise, have I?

Bye, Jojo

Richard<> writes:
> Richard Heathfield <> writes:
[...]
>> when people say they
>> rarely use a debugger, he interprets "rarely" as "never".
>
> Nonsense. As usual you twist things and lie.
>
[...]
> I also detect from the responses here that there are many
> programmer who have never used one more out of not being aware of their
^^^^^
> facilities.
[...]

Quoted without further comment.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"