all errors and warnings in C

[prasanna]

i will be very thankful if you sent all the errors and warnings regarding
to the language C

thank you

[Igmar Palsenberg]

prasanna wrote:

i will be very thankful if you sent all the errors and warnings regarding
to the language C
Warnings and errors depend on the compiler used. The C standard only
dictates what is correct C, it doesn't care what the actual error
messages are what a compiler produces.
thank you

Igmar

[Mike Wahler]

"prasanna" <sv**********@i ndiatimes.com> wrote in message
news:11******** *************** *******@localho st.talkaboutpro gramming.com...

i will be very thankful if you sent all the errors and warnings regarding
to the language C

The language standard requires an implementation to issue
a diagnostic message for certain language rule violations.
The actual text of such messages is not specified. I.e.
every message could be simply e.g. "ERROR!". "Warnings" are
not required at all. Most implementations do provide somewhat
meaninful warnings and errors, and each will have their own.
Consult your documentation.
-Mike

[Keith Thompson]

"prasanna" <sv**********@i ndiatimes.com> writes:

i will be very thankful if you sent all the errors and warnings regarding
to the language C

I'm afraid your question doesn't make much sense.

A particular compiler might have a list of all the error and warning
messages it can produce, but it's going to be different from the
messages another compiler can produce. Compiler vendors don't
typically provide such lists, since they're not likely to be useful.
In any case, questions about specific compilers are off-topic here.

(The number of mistakes you can make while programming in C is, of
course, unlimited.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Dan Pop]

In <11************ *************** ***@localhost.t alkaboutprogram ming.com> "prasanna" <sv**********@i ndiatimes.com> writes:

i will be very thankful if you sent all the errors and warnings regarding
to the language C

The C standard contains the complete list of instances requiring a
compiler diagnostic. It doesn't divide compiler diagnostics into
errors and warnings and it doesn't provide any requirements WRT the
proper phrasing of these diagnostics. It also explicitly allows
implementations to produce other diagnostics than the required ones, as
long as the required ones are produced.

Furthermore, only *one* diagnostic is required for a "faulty" translation
unit, no matter how many standard violations requiring a diagnostic it
contains.

So, the minimal requirements imposed by the language are trivially met
by a compiler displaying a copyright message for each and every
translation unit processed, whether it is perfectly correct or not.

Real implementations usually do better than that, but each decides how
much better.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Kenneth Brody]

Mike Wahler wrote:

"prasanna" <sv**********@i ndiatimes.com> wrote in message
news:11******** *************** *******@localho st.talkaboutpro gramming.com...

i will be very thankful if you sent all the errors and warnings regarding
to the language C

The language standard requires an implementation to issue
a diagnostic message for certain language rule violations.
The actual text of such messages is not specified. I.e.
every message could be simply e.g. "ERROR!". "Warnings" are
not required at all. Most implementations do provide somewhat
meaninful warnings and errors, and each will have their own.
Consult your documentation.

Can a compiler "make up" its own warnings? Could a conforming compiler
issue a warning if the definition of main() didn't start on an odd-numbered
line, or if you used the "wrong" method of placing braces?

$ yuckycc -c foo.c
foo.c:8 Warning! Definition of main() should be on an odd-numbered line.
foo.c:10 Warning! I don't like variables named "j".
foo.c:12 Warning! Braces belong indented below the if() line.
foo.c:297 Warning! Length of source file exceeds the day of the year.

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | |
| kenbrody at spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | #include <std_disclaimer .h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+

[Joona I Palaste]

Kenneth Brody <ke******@spamc op.net> scribbled the following:

Mike Wahler wrote:

"prasanna" <sv**********@i ndiatimes.com> wrote in message
news:11******** *************** *******@localho st.talkaboutpro gramming.com...

> i will be very thankful if you sent all the errors and warnings regarding
> to the language C
The language standard requires an implementation to issue
a diagnostic message for certain language rule violations.
The actual text of such messages is not specified. I.e.
every message could be simply e.g. "ERROR!". "Warnings" are
not required at all. Most implementations do provide somewhat
meaninful warnings and errors, and each will have their own.
Consult your documentation.

Can a compiler "make up" its own warnings? Could a conforming compiler
issue a warning if the definition of main() didn't start on an odd-numbered
line, or if you used the "wrong" method of placing braces? $ yuckycc -c foo.c
foo.c:8 Warning! Definition of main() should be on an odd-numbered line.
foo.c:10 Warning! I don't like variables named "j".
foo.c:12 Warning! Braces belong indented below the if() line.
foo.c:297 Warning! Length of source file exceeds the day of the year.

This is entirely allowed, as long as the compiler actually compiles the
code according to the ISO C standard. The warnings don't even have to
have anything to do with the source code. This is allowed too:

$ yuckycc -c foo.c
foo.c:1 Warning! You are too ugly to be writing C code!
foo.c:2 Warning! Your feet smell! When did you last take a bath?

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.hel sinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"It's time, it's time, it's time to dump the slime!"
- Dr. Dante

[Eric Sosman]

Kenneth Brody wrote:

Mike Wahler wrote:

"prasanna" <sv**********@i ndiatimes.com> wrote in message
news:11****** *************** *********@local host.talkaboutp rogramming.com. ..

i will be very thankful if you sent all the errors and warnings regarding
to the language C

The language standard requires an implementation to issue
a diagnostic message for certain language rule violations.
The actual text of such messages is not specified. I.e.
every message could be simply e.g. "ERROR!". "Warnings" are
not required at all. Most implementations do provide somewhat
meaninful warnings and errors, and each will have their own.
Consult your documentation.

Can a compiler "make up" its own warnings? Could a conforming compiler
issue a warning if the definition of main() didn't start on an odd-numbered
line, or if you used the "wrong" method of placing braces?

$ yuckycc -c foo.c
foo.c:8 Warning! Definition of main() should be on an odd-numbered line.
foo.c:10 Warning! I don't like variables named "j".
foo.c:12 Warning! Braces belong indented below the if() line.
foo.c:297 Warning! Length of source file exceeds the day of the year.

Yes, of course.

foo.c:1 Warning! Using "foo" as a file name is deprecated.
foo.c:42 Warning! This really isn't The Answer.
foo.c:56 Accolade! malloc() used without a cast.

However, if the program is correct the implementation must
accept and attempt to execute it, no matter how many warnings
or other diagnostics it has issued.

There's no straightforward technical criterion by which
one can determine whether a particular warning is superfluous
or essential: it's matter of the expected "error styles" of the
users. When the compiler draws attention to perfectly correct
C code, it may just be making useless noise -- but on the other
hand, it may be saving your butt.

switch (what) {
case 1:
x = f();
break;
case 2:
x = g();
break;
case3:
x = h();
break;
}

.... is perfectly good C, yet I for one would be glad to be warned
that `x = h();' is not reachable, or that the label `case3' is
not used.

It's a QoI ("Quality of Implementation" ) issue -- and "Q"
is neither one-dimensional nor even measured the same way by
all users of the compiler.

--
Er*********@sun .com

[Gordon Burditt]

>> > i will be very thankful if you sent all the errors and warnings regarding

> to the language C
The language standard requires an implementation to issue
a diagnostic message for certain language rule violations.
The actual text of such messages is not specified. I.e.
every message could be simply e.g. "ERROR!". "Warnings" are
not required at all. Most implementations do provide somewhat
meaninful warnings and errors, and each will have their own.
Consult your documentation.

Can a compiler "make up" its own warnings?

Yes. Since warnings are not required at all, ALL warnings are "made
up". I consider this true even in spite of a "common warnings"
chapter in the (C90) standard, which does not pretend to contain actual
wordings of warning messages.
Could a conforming compiler
issue a warning if the definition of main() didn't start on an odd-numbered
line, or if you used the "wrong" method of placing braces?

$ yuckycc -c foo.c
foo.c:8 Warning! Definition of main() should be on an odd-numbered line.
foo.c:10 Warning! I don't like variables named "j".
foo.c:12 Warning! Braces belong indented below the if() line.
foo.c:297 Warning! Length of source file exceeds the day of the year.

Yes, and this is acceptable per the standard even if the warning
is a lie (e.g. main() DOES begin on an odd-numbered line). It's a
quality-of-implementation issue.

However, I believe it is not acceptable to have an infinite number
of warnings for a standards-correct program, as that amounts to
failure to compile it. I don't believe that anything in the standard
prohibits the compiler from issuing a warning *AND* deleting the source
code if it generates a correct program.

Gordon L. Burditt

[Mark McIntyre]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:12:02 -0400, in comp.lang.c , Kenneth Brody
<ke******@spamc op.net> wrote:

Can a compiler "make up" its own warnings? Could a conforming compiler
issue a warning if the definition of main() didn't start on an odd-numbered
line, or if you used the "wrong" method of placing braces?
Just so long as it doesn't prevent compilation of a valid programme.
$ yuckycc -c foo.c

foo.c:11 warning: I never could get the hang of thursdays.
foo.c:22 information: the Liberator is under attack.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.c om/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc. html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---