C99 Question

[Vijay Kumar R Zanvar]

Hi,

Which section of C99 says that return value
of malloc(3) should not be casted?

Thanks.

--
Vijay Kumar R Zanvar
My Home Page - http://www.geocities.com/vijoeyz/

[Sidney Cadot]

The Real OS/2 Guy wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:39:30 UTC, "E. Robert Tisdale"
<E.************ **@jpl.nasa.gov > wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

I'm suggesting that, if you wish to use C code in a C++ program,
you can generally do it without recompiling the C code.

Really! Are you an expert in C/C++ interoperabilit y now?

Tell us how you would do it
without compiling the C code with a C++ compiler.
Is your method guaranteed to work?

1. use a text edtor of your choice to write the sources that contains
the functions you likes to share with other languages
2. use a text editor of your choice to write one or more interface
file(s) (known as header files) to define the interfaces right use the
calling conventions your compiler supports to get the external entry
points described completely
3. use a C compiler of your choice to compile it error free with
highest warning level on,
tell the compiler to use the headers defined in step one to check
the definitions against the declarations
4. use a linker that is woth its name to build a library from the
object code your compiler generates
5. use the linker (or another program if they are separately on you
system) to build an interface module that generates an interface
module for the library that generates the needed object code to call
the library dynamically instead to bind it statically to a single
program. As this step is optionally, you will need it only to share
the same library with other programs at runtime.
6. use a text editor of your choice to write functions in another
programming language of your choice...... continue 2. - 5 to build
another libraries and object interfaces, replace C with C++, Fortran,
Pascal or any other langugae you knows of.

At least you gets many libraries written in many different languages
compiled with many different compilers together to many separately
compiled modules linked to single executeables whereas none of the
compilers knows of the others - but wors perfectly together.

But only step 3 has something to do with the topic of this newsgroup.
But this should show why Tisdale owns his nickname Twitsdale.

You forgot to answer the second andmore important of ERT's questions:

"Is your method guaranteed to work?"

(Hint: no. If you disagree, chapter and verse please)

Best regards,

Sidney

[Sidney Cadot]

The Real OS/2 Guy wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 20:56:35 UTC, Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw. nl>
wrote:

Okay. Then we probably agree that Mr. Plauger at least has a valid
reason for wanting to compile C code using a C++ compiler.

There is none, not a single reason to recompile C code using something
that is NOT a C compiler.

That's quite an absolute statement. A bit too dogmatic for my taste.

Perhaps this would be better rephrased as "I cannot think of, and have
personally never encountered, such a reason."

If you disagree, please /prove/ the non-existence of such reasons.

Best regards,

Sidney

[CBFalconer]

"P.J. Plauger" wrote:

"The Real OS/2 Guy" <os****@pc-rosenau.de> wrote in message

Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw. nl> wrote:

Okay. Then we probably agree that Mr. Plauger at least has a
valid reason for wanting to compile C code using a C++ compiler.

There is none, not a single reason to recompile C code using
something that is NOT a C compiler.

Oh, to have such certainty.

I still cherish a cartoon I clipped from Punch roughly half a
century ago. It shows two knights errant resting on horseback
beneath a tree. One says to the other, "Isn't life simple
when you know you're right all the time?"

It is unfortunate that Punch has bitten the dust, it was an
amazingly accurate publication.

I also maintain that one such possible reason is the one I gave
earlier, concerning "compilable by unwashed idiots on any compiler
without complaint or handholding". To clear something up, this
did not mean that users were necessarily such types, but simply
that allowance for such was to be made. Thus nobody was being
denigrated.

--
Chuck F (cb********@yah oo.com) (cb********@wor ldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net> USE worldnet address!

[Richard Bos]

"P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware .com> wrote:

"CBFalconer " <cb********@yah oo.com> wrote in message
news:3F******** *******@yahoo.c om...

> Mr Zanvar should note that ERT, better known in these parts as
> Trollsdale, is usually wrong and gives (as in this case) bad
> advice.

Whatever his record, I happen to agree with him on this matter.

However you have, I believe, a different motive. You want your
shrouded source to be compilable by unwashed idiots on any
compiler without complaint or handholding.

Believe what you want.

Of course we believe this; it is equivalent to what you yourself have
been giving as your reasons all along.

Do note, though, that said unwashed idiots do not include you yourself.

Richard

[Programmer Dude]

Sidney Cadot wrote:

Then we probably agree that Mr. Plauger at least has a valid
reason for wanting to compile C code using a C++ compiler.

Perhaps I can offer another.

I like--no, make that *love*--exceptions and the new operator.
I also *love* function and operator overloading. (Actually,
I just *like* operator overloading a lot. :-) And there are
places where I like having a class or template.

But I also have a high regard for the simplicity and clarity
of straight C.

Using a hybrid of the two gives me the best of both worlds.
Needless to say, the compiler needs to be C++.

--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack. com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ _______________ ____| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|______________ _______________ _______________ _|_____________ __________|

[Keith Thompson]

Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack. com> writes:

Sidney Cadot wrote:

Then we probably agree that Mr. Plauger at least has a valid
reason for wanting to compile C code using a C++ compiler.

Perhaps I can offer another.

I like--no, make that *love*--exceptions and the new operator.
I also *love* function and operator overloading. (Actually,
I just *like* operator overloading a lot. :-) And there are
places where I like having a class or template.

But I also have a high regard for the simplicity and clarity
of straight C.

Using a hybrid of the two gives me the best of both worlds.
Needless to say, the compiler needs to be C++.

Huh?

If you're using exceptions, the new operator, function and operator
overloading, classes, and templates, you're not compiling C code with
a C++ compiler. You're compiling C++ code with a C++ compiler.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"

[Richard Bos]

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:

Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack. com> writes:

Sidney Cadot wrote:

I like--no, make that *love*--exceptions and the new operator.
I also *love* function and operator overloading. (Actually,
I just *like* operator overloading a lot. :-) And there are
places where I like having a class or template.

But I also have a high regard for the simplicity and clarity
of straight C.

Using a hybrid of the two gives me the best of both worlds.
Needless to say, the compiler needs to be C++.

Huh?

If you're using exceptions, the new operator, function and operator
overloading, classes, and templates, you're not compiling C code with
a C++ compiler. You're compiling C++ code with a C++ compiler.

Moreover, if you're using new, you're not using malloc(), so you have no
need to cast malloc() calls, which is where this sub-thread started.

Richard

[Programmer Dude]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Using a hybrid of the two gives me the best of both worlds.
Needless to say, the compiler needs to be C++.
Huh?

I said, "NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE COMPILER NEEDS TO BE C++!" (-:

If you're using exceptions, the new operator, function and operator
overloading, classes, and templates, you're not compiling C code
with a C++ compiler. You're compiling C++ code with a C++ compiler.

From a purest point of view, I suppose so. But it can be pretty
C-ish code sometimes.

--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack. com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ _______________ ____| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|______________ _______________ _______________ _|_____________ __________|

[Keith Thompson]

Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack. com> writes:

Keith Thompson wrote:

[...]

If you're using exceptions, the new operator, function and operator
overloading, classes, and templates, you're not compiling C code
with a C++ compiler. You're compiling C++ code with a C++ compiler.

From a purest point of view, I suppose so. But it can be pretty
C-ish code sometimes.

C++ contains most of C as a subset. You can write C++ that emphasizes
that subset, but from your description, I wouldn't describe your code
as a hybrid. At most, you're writing C++ with a mild C accent.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"

[Default User]

Keith Thompson wrote:

C++ contains most of C as a subset. You can write C++ that emphasizes
that subset, but from your description, I wouldn't describe your code
as a hybrid. At most, you're writing C++ with a mild C accent.

Better than with a Lisp.

Brian Rodenborn