Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > lcc-win

Reply
Thread Tools

lcc-win

 
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2011
On 08/12/11 08:12 AM, Ralf Damaschke wrote:
> jacob navia<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> None of my extensions affects strictly conforming programs. I have
>> never added ANY keyword, nor a reserved identifier.
>>
>> I have repeated this countless times since several YEARS but you
>> (and your friends) ALWAYS bring up the same WRONG argument.

>
> May be because even an eternal repetition of your argument does not
> make it true. I remember to have seen here reports that lcc-win
> deliberately copies declarations of standard functions to standard
> headers they do not belong to, and pollutes the user name space
> with proprietary macro and function names. All of these "extensions"
> will prevent a specific strictly conforming program from being
> compiled.


Why are you bashing a tool you haven't used? Jacob has also repeatedly
stated that those extensions are disabled in conforming mode.

Can you name a compiler that is strictly conforming in its default mode?

--
Ian Collins
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tom st denis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2011
On Aug 11, 2:46*pm, Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> [...]> The only thing that the C standard requires of a fully conforming
> > implementation of C when the source code contains a syntax error is a
> > diagnostic message. Whatever else the implementation chooses to do after
> > issuing the diagnostic message has no impact on whether or not it
> > conforms to the C standard.

>
> > There only needs to be one such diagnostic, no matter how many different
> > syntax errors or constraint violations the code contains. The message
> > doesn't have to say where the syntax error occurred. The message doesn't
> > have to say anything useful at all. It doesn't even have to be in any
> > known language. About the only restrictions imposed by the standard on
> > the contents of a diagnostic is that diagnostics must be identifiable as
> > such, and the way they can be so identified must be explained in the
> > documentation for that implementation.

>
> [...]
>
> And there's no requirement that diagnostics required by the language
> (those for syntax errors and constraint violations) be distinguishable
> from any additional diagnostics that the standard might choose to emit.
>
> So in principle, a compiler that issues a single warning for every
> translation unit (and handles #error correctly) would satisfy the
> standard's requirements for diagnostics.


Maybe Jacob could add an experimental mode in which errors/warnings
were more standardized and helpful than that as required by the ISO C
spec...

Tom
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2011
On 08/12/2011 01:20 PM, tom st denis wrote:
....
> Maybe Jacob could add an experimental mode in which errors/warnings
> were more standardized and helpful than that as required by the ISO C
> spec...


I would hope that, like most real-world compilers, lcc-win32 already
does so in default mode. It would be pretty difficult to generate
diagnostics that are less standardized or less helpful than required by
the C standard. I'm not sure it's possible to provide diagnostics that
are less helpful than required by the C standard, since the standard
imposes no limits on how un-helpful a diagnostic could be.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tom st denis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2011
On Aug 12, 2:00*pm, James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 08/12/2011 01:20 PM, tom st denis wrote:
> ...
>
> > Maybe Jacob could add an experimental mode in which errors/warnings
> > were more standardized and helpful than that as required by the ISO C
> > spec...

>
> I would hope that, like most real-world compilers, lcc-win32 already
> does so in default mode. It would be pretty difficult to generate
> diagnostics that are less standardized or less helpful than required by
> the C standard. I'm not sure it's possible to provide diagnostics that
> are less helpful than required by the C standard, since the standard
> imposes no limits on how un-helpful a diagnostic could be.


I mean Jacob comes up with his own "standard" for errors/warnings and
documents that. Joking aside, that actually might be helpful to the
industry. Imagine if Solaris CC, GCC, CLANG, etc all produced
identical text for errors/warnings. That'd be plenty darn handy.

Tom
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Pfaff
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2011
tom st denis <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> I mean Jacob comes up with his own "standard" for errors/warnings and
> documents that. Joking aside, that actually might be helpful to the
> industry. Imagine if Solaris CC, GCC, CLANG, etc all produced
> identical text for errors/warnings. That'd be plenty darn handy.


It would be? What would it be handy for?
--
"All code should be deliberately written for the purposes of instruction.
If your code isn't readable, it isn't finished yet."
--Richard Heathfield
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2011
Le 12/08/11 20:23, tom st denis a Úcrit :
>
> I mean Jacob comes up with his own "standard" for errors/warnings and
> documents that. Joking aside, that actually might be helpful to the
> industry. Imagine if Solaris CC, GCC, CLANG, etc all produced
> identical text for errors/warnings. That'd be plenty darn handy.
>
> Tom



I have tried to improve all error messages issued by lcc-win.
For instance, "lvalue required" was replaced by "the left hand
side can't be assigned to", I try to detect missing semi-colons
and diagnostic them as such instead of just "syntax error",
etc.

 
Reply With Quote
 
tom st denis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2011
On Aug 12, 2:36*pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Ben Pfaff) wrote:
> tom st denis <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> > I mean Jacob comes up with his own "standard" for errors/warnings and
> > documents that. *Joking aside, that actually might be helpful to the
> > industry. *Imagine if Solaris CC, GCC, CLANG, etc all produced
> > identical text for errors/warnings. *That'd be plenty darn handy.

>
> It would be? *What would it be handy for?


For starters, it'd make people trying to debug syntax errors not have
to learn the idiosyncrasies of their compiler. It'd mean in theory
they could post them to clc without getting an OT banhammer, etc...

Tom
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Pfaff
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2011
tom st denis <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Aug 12, 2:36┬*pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Ben Pfaff) wrote:
>> tom st denis <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>> > I mean Jacob comes up with his own "standard" for errors/warnings and
>> > documents that. ┬*Joking aside, that actually might be helpful to the
>> > industry. ┬*Imagine if Solaris CC, GCC, CLANG, etc all produced
>> > identical text for errors/warnings. ┬*That'd be plenty darn handy.

>>
>> It would be? ┬*What would it be handy for?

>
> For starters, it'd make people trying to debug syntax errors not have
> to learn the idiosyncrasies of their compiler. It'd mean in theory
> they could post them to clc without getting an OT banhammer, etc...


Hmm. The former might be useful. I don't think the latter makes
much sense; it would be unusual for someone to post a compiler
error message to comp.lang.c, along with some code, and have
anyone complain that the error message by itself made the article
off-topic.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments